Back in March, I asked a question in the subscriber-only thread: Would you say of yourself, or have you noticed in others, that online social justice activism, has driven you to more extreme, hardline positions than would otherwise be the case? Given the growing toxicity of online debate, I wanted to know if people were becoming less willing to accommodate “the other sides”’s arguments.
"We don't want to 'normalise' MEN in women's bathrooms. Why should we, we don't want them in our SSS. That women are saying #NO we don't accept MEN in women's spaces full stop, doesn't seem to be a good enough reason for you. Why is that?"
Is this the Royal We? Does she have a mouse in her pocket? And guaranteed if you cite women who disagree with her, she will say "We're not a monolith", and then go back speaking for all women 5 minutes later
""We're not a monolith", and then go back speaking for all women 5 minutes later"
😅 Yep, absolutely. I notice this tactic a lot amongst people whose arguments aren't strong or well-thought out enough, so they hide behind their group identity (and, of course, try to disqualify your opinion because your group identity isn't "correct").
I wonder what the stats are on trans criminal activity in women's bathroom? I am sympathetic to the idea that a bathroom is an extremely vulnerable location. You are often alone with your pants down!
And I wonder what the crime is against trans women who use the mens bathroom. ALSO a very vulnerable situation!
I tend to agree with you regarding sports. Reality will show the silliness of the current ridiculous position. Indeed I predict we will have some national or international org that will declare trans women can compete in a very strength dominated sport (like running) then some trans woman will establish a world wide record well beyond the capability of all biological women. That situation will generate outrage year after year until it the law is reversed. hopefully that event will herald reality's voice more broadly into these discussions.
All that said, I am tentatively in favor of trans women using women's restrooms. But for me it all comes down to the numbers. If even a modest number of molestations occurred it would be enough to change all women's perceived and actual safety. Thus I wonder... what are the numbers? (not sure if you would know)
"I wonder what the stats are on trans criminal activity in women's bathroom?"
Yeah, I've been wanting to get a clearer picture of this for a while now. Sadly, the way incidents like that are reported and recorded means that it's almost impossible to get figures that are even halfway meaningful. But the larger problem is, it's not just about criminal activity. It's not a crime, for example, to leer at somebody in a way that makes them uncomfortable. I think too much of this debate focuses on rape, as if anything less than that is inconsequential.
But that said, I think bathrooms are the least controversial of all female spaces, mainly because, as I said, they're segregated by femininity rather than biological sex. Trans women who "pass" already use women's bathrooms without incident. And women's bathrooms have private stalls that (mostly) afford privacy. And besides that, for reasons I laid out in the conversation, forcing trans men to use female bathrooms would make it *easier* for perverts to enter women's bathrooms.
The debate is often framed as a "bathroom" issue, when really it's about the different needs and expectations for women in bathrooms vs changing rooms vs rape crisis centres. A pre-op trans woman can't use a female changing room without incident. And it's unreasonable to expect women and girls who aren't comfortable with penises in private spaces to simply ignore them. A woman in a rape crisis centre might reasonably expect that she's in a space that is free of males. Overriding her trauma to validate a trans woman is a call I find hard to justify (though, of course, trans people need support in cases where they're raped too). There are no easy answers. But it goes way beyond bathrooms.
As I said right at the top of this conversation, the problem is that we're not allowed to acknowledge that these issues are complex and need serious, careful thought. We're just supposed to pick a side, and yell at anybody who doesn't mindlessly spout the talking points for our side.
It's going to be difficult to track "trans criminal activity in women's bathrooms", as in many places any trans person committing a crime is recorded under their gender identity, without any annotation about their trans status.
Sports organization generally have rules about what's allowed already - typically requiring some maximum level of testosterone or some minimum time since going on hormones, but (1) differing by the sport, (2) differing by the organization, and (3) undergoing revision. But I take your point, that under current rules, somebody will set a record which biological women will never beat. This happens slowly because trans folk are pretty rare statistically (and some of them voluntarily abstain from competing with biological women), but since records are cumulative, over a number of decades the top women's sports records in many sports could be mostly held by trans women. I wonder if anybody will be quietly tracking which records are set by trans women, so they could be backed out later when people come to their senses?
If you haven't heard, the latest issue is non-binary folks in sports; in the case of citizen races, they want their own NB awards, with equal monetary stakes to the men's and women's, because doing otherwise would imply that some gender identities are better than others. An interesting side note is that in races which require some qualifying time to participate, the first pass by organizers was to set the NB qualifying times halfway between male and female qualifying times. However, NB folks who were "afab" think this is unfair to them, so they are agreeing with "amab"NB folks that the NB category should use the women's qualifying times.
It's almost as if sports should be divided by biological sex rather than by gender identity, or something radical like that - like letting afab NB use the women's qualifying time and amab NB would use the men's starting time.
"Sports organization generally have rules about what's allowed already - typically requiring some maximum level of testosterone or some minimum time since going on hormones,"
Yeah, there's a large body of evidence pointing out that these measures aren't adequate to eliminate advantage. A snapshot of testosterone levels is close to meaninglesss when trying to calculate biological advantage.
I've pointed out a few times that testosterone functions like a performance enhancing drug. And it's true in this case too. Consider Lance Armstrong, He cheated for years. But he was able to produce samples which met the requirements when necessary. Testosterone works similarly.
Once you've gone through male puberty, that flood of testosterone permanently changes your skeletal structure and density, your heart/lung size, your hand size and grip strength, these changes aren't affected by lowering testosterone. Also, if you train as a male athlete, you benefit from years of cardiovascular training, faster recovery, and connective tissue development that doesn't simply disappear.
The issue, I fear, is that sporting organisations, like many other organisations, are too afraid or captured to talk about this honestly. Although there are signs that that's changing.
yes to all of this. The way in which I think we might end up with an unbeatable record is for one of the THOUSANDS of XY elite athletes to decide to be trans for a bit. (This will only work for sports where gender identity attestation alone is the deciding factor.) For things like running it is literally the case there are more than a thousand XY that are faster than the fastest XX. It only takes 0.1% of 1% to decide that they were a little transy anyway. Their payoff is an unbeatable world record! that might be a much faster path than waiting for the small population of trans women to produce a super athlete.
They would receive a lot of hate and might well be banned permanently from competing, but it would make the point that self-identification is not enough. However, most elite sports organization don't accept self identification anyway (as I mentioned they have various rules).
Did you see how Zuby (https://www.youtube.com/c/ZubyMusic) set the UK women's lifting record - not seriously, and not for the records, but just to demonstrate it. You might find Zuby interesting in any case.
I have a simpler idea. You change sex or gender or whichever word is in fashion this hour you are ineligible for sports competition.
I don't see why we even need two bathrooms. Maybe (1) small urinal-only bathrooms for men who need to whiz and (2) larger bathrooms with stalls for women and for men who need to poop,
I've seen almost just that in China. A public restroom with a common entry to an area with urinals along the wall on the right with a side view of urinating men. To the left the first passageway was to the ladies room. They did not walk past the urinals. Walking past that passageway led to the entrance to the men's stalls. The stalls had doors. Privacy for the squatting activity and nonchalance with regard to the standing activity.
Sex-separated public toilets began in Paris in 1739. They eventually became standard because for much of history people relieved themselves wherever they pleased. I've seen this in Hanoi, a peasant woman squatting on the sidewalk and taking a dump. It's not common, and Vietnam doesn't ubiquitously smell like sewage as India does.
I can't imagine my idea taking hold in the prudish Puritan-descended USA. Too many would feel "uncomfortable." But in a lot European gyms the steam and sauna rooms are mixed gender.
I see no need to prohibit people from sports competition on that basis. Just have an open league available to all, and optional special leagues based on biology which must be objectively determined (eg: for biological women or for people with disabilities). A woman or disabled person would be able to compete in the open, or choose the special league if it exists. Identifying as a women or as disabled would not qualify one to compete in those special leagues but the open league would still be available to all. Trans athletes could compete in the open, or form their own special league. Simple enough.
I think you might want to run your idea about bathrooms past some women before volunteering them to participate in your vision. Sharing the overall space - outside of the stalls per se - feels unsafe to many of them. Otherwise they could just use the men's public restrooms today. Most don't think being protected from seeing men's backs while the men pee is the main rationale for segregated bathrooms.
Having separate individual bathrooms, each with their own door, sink and facilities, might meet that need better (rather than individual toilet stalls in a shared space). Or course, this is more expensive in money and space even for new buildings, and it would be a massive retrofit for existing buildings to achieve the same number of facilities as they now have. And it this option was rejected by the US government under Obama when schools offered it - the activists did not just want safety, they specifically wanted the experience of feeling included in a shared women's space, so one-person bathrooms were not enough.
"Just have an open league available to all, and optional special leagues based on biology which must be objectively determined"
Not really sure an open league makes sense. In practice, this would just be a men's league.
The purpose of women's leagues is to give women not just an opportunity to compete, but to win. To have their dedication recognised. To allow people like the Williams sisters and Sha'Carri Richardson and Katie Ledecky to become household names instead of the ~500th best athlete in the world in their respective sports.
I've suggested that trans women and women compete together, but have their medals and records recorded seperately. This is far from a perfect solution, I can foresee and understand female athletes complaining about not getting the satisfaction of crossing the line first, but whatever happens, simply having trans women and women compete is untenable long term if female sport is to continue to exist.
Steve, read the second half of the sentence you quoted.
A league for biological women (AFAB people) would be one of the special leagues which people may qualify for by objectively being, well, biological women. A league for people with disabilities could be another (think paralympics). If non-binary people and/or cross-sex trans folks wanted their own league, likewise they could organize one. If they are content with the open league, that's OK too.
One point of the open league is that nobody can say their "human right to participate in sports" (an asserted "human right" in some olympic literature cited by trans athletes) has been denied; everybody is welcome in the open league. At most, only their right to qualify for some special league would be in question, which is not a human right.
It's true that it's likely that the large bulk of the open league would consist of AMAB athletes, but only to the extent that there is some inherent advantage, not because somebody else has been excluded. Only the special leagues would require qualifications.
In most sports, an alternative women's league would be quickly organized (for something like competitive shooting, it might not be needed). And a league for people with disabilities would likely follow in many cases. (etc)
But if they wanted, people who qualified for one of the special leagues could play in the open league instead - their choice.
They could use a different word than "special" to describe the alternative leagues, I'm not attached to the name. But the concept is "an alternative option for a clearly identifiable group of people who have an objective disadvantage which makes it unlikely that they could usually win in the open".
"A league for biological women (AFAB people) would be one of the special leagues which people may qualify for by objectively being, well, biological women."
Yeah, I saw that. I guess what I'm objecting to is a) the notion of an open league that is "available to all." As I said, this would, for all intents and purposes, be a men's league, so you'd have a men's league and a bunch of other "special leagues". I get the impression that people without direct experience of high-level athletics don't fully grasp the size of the performance differences between elite males and females. As I said, there are only a handful of sports where the top female athlete would break the top 500 in the world. Nobody knows the name of the 500th best sprinter in the world.
And b) I'm objecting to classifying female sports as a "special league." The purpose of female sport is to put female athletes on an equal footing with male athletes in terms of legitimacy and prestige. You say we could use "a different word than 'special'", but in a sane world, the word would remain, simply, "female." You're talking about female sport as if it's a hypothetical that "could" be implemented instead of a de-facto division that's existed for decades. 😅
The point you make about trans people's human right to compete in sport is interesting. I'm not a fan of the "nobody is saying..." formulation, but literally nobody is saying that trans people can't compete in sport. Nobody is denying them that right. The question is whether trans women, who are male (AMAB terminology obfuscates the fact that they *are* male not "assigned" male), should get to compete against females or whether they should compete against other males.
If anybody should have a special league, it's the small number of elite athletes whose bodies, due to hormone treatments, are best described as something like "male-minus" or "female-plus".
> "I'm objecting to classifying female sports as a "'special league' "
Again, the word "special" may have been used in haste, let's not over-focus on it. We could use "qualified" or "limited".
I'm not trying to be repetitive, but there appear to me to be some subtle differences in framing between what I'm suggesting, and what you seem to be responding to, so I'll attempt to rephrase to convey it more clearly.
The *concept* is having an open league which is available to everybody, and if needed having one or more optional leagues to handle this pair of dynamics: (1) They are meant to create an easier alternative environment for a distinct population which has significant objective disadvantages within the open league (ie: a new league where winning requires lower performance than in the open by design), and (2) They are not 'open' to all, but limited to the specific group in question.
These two characteristics are tied to each other. If there isn't a performance gap between the qualified league and the open, then there would be no purpose to the qualified league. If it's easier to win in the qualified league, then that league would need to limit participation to those qualified for that league.
This could include leagues for biological women (since there is a substantial objective difference in most sports), or for people with disabilities. However, this would not include league for blue eyed people, nor for Republicans, because there is no objective performance difference requiring it. And if for some sport there is no meaningful difference in average performance among biological men and biological women, there would be no need for an optional league for which one needs to be a biological woman.
Part of the point here is to be sure that nobody is excluded from the open, and that alternative leagues for which one must qualify, are based on real world performance disadvantages of the group compared to the open. That would make biological sex a valid distinction (if it has performance disparities across that distinction), but gender identification would be no more relevant than religious identification.
A biological man (of any gender identity, including non-binary) would be accepted in the open, but not qualified for a league organized for biological women. A biological woman would qualify for the latter, regardless of gender identity (with the possible caveat of testosterone limits).
If a given biological woman is good enough to compete in the open (for some sport, likely one where the sex-based disparities are small), she would be welcome - there are no requirement to qualify. For some things, like a citizen's foot race, substitute "is willing to accept a place lower in the rankings" for "is good enough to compete".
Yep. It's not often that I get to take this side of the debate, so I wanted to show how both sides are susceptible to unreasonableness. The argument on both sides is driven by fear, so sadly emotions always run high.
A shortcoming of binary thinking in general. Friend-foe, edible-inedible, true-false, etc. The real world is not binary. We can make binary decisions with regard to a bunch of analog data that can be a matter of life and death. Real life is full of grey areas not obviously a black or white binary. People are making binary yes-no value judgments where their bias does not allow for precision much beyond a binary yes-no view of the gray data. The binary value should be at the end of the logical thought process, not the beginning.
"Real life is full of grey areas not obviously a black or white binary."
This is really the source of 90% of my arguments on line, People who are simply unwilling to acknowledge that there are perspectives other than their own that aren't motivated by hatred or evil or stupidity. The world is too complex to take a "no-compromise" position on pretty much any issue. Some people find this fact terrifying.
Reminder that "you are not entitled to your own facts." Some things truly are matters of fact and have no element of opinion or perspective. There should be "no compromise" on the fact that Trump lost the 2020 election. There should be "no compromise" on the fact the Capitol was invaded by a violent mob, there should be "no compromise" that they were not tourists or "merely exercising their free speech rights."
We are living in dangerous times. Whether its the acceptance of indisputable political falsehood or the claim that a man in a dress is a woman, we have entered an epistemological crisis and we are learning what a fragile retrofit logic is.
Many things are intrinsically binary and sex is pretty much one of them. From elementary particles on up, one-or-the-other is the rule.
I see the choice of the word "nonbinary" as an intentional scold, implying that people who see male/female as the polarity it clearly is are in some way mentally deficient. They could call themselves "intermediate gender" but that would not only fail to condescend, it would highlight the absurdity of their claim.
I'm not defending the "non-binary" abuse of language. Not holding all of the "standard" traits pertaining to something does not make the something not the something.
Distantly related to the topic here, would like feedback from the readers. Steve, this is probably out of line but I can find no way to write to you privately. Feel free to delete, but I would still like your reaction.
Not out of line, and to the point. That was a good read on how things can go beyond usefulness and become counterproductive.
There appears to be a great deal of diversity within the community of homosexuals. With both men and women there is a range from hypermasculine to hyperfeminine. "Normal" (unnoticed inn everyday activity even if not closeted) to flamboyantly and purposefully shocking. That first divide is fine, the second may need a divorce. Matching together seems to me to have outlived it's usefulness.
Where is the line between people with nonstandard gender traits and gender dysphoria to be drawn? In fact, this I don't know, what is the difference in someone who is happy to have any kind of sex with anyone and an actual homosexual which I assume goes beyond sexual roles to something more fundamental in makeup. I can't help but notice that the word homosexual is focused on an activity and may be bypassing something more important. You might be able to answer that.
Sexual orientation refers to attraction and arousal, not behavior. A man might never have sex in his life but if he's aroused by men then he's gay. And plenty of people who have gay sex (prostitutes, prisoners) aren't actually gay.
Male bisexuality is actually pretty rare. So called bisexual men tend to lean heavily one way or the other and it's almost always gay. I've read that bisexual women are more common.
As for definitions of dysphoria, there are fairly solid definitions in medicine as there must be since meeting the criteria is a requirement for gender reassignment.
The effeminate gay man was a behavioral choice in my experience, I knew plenty of them who would turn it on when they had an audience and turn it off once once the offendees had walked on. I went through all that for a few months when I came out but remember it with shame and got over it. But hey, I never bought any Judy Garland records.
Is this actually happening? That is grotesque. Nobody not yet an adult should be allowed to make decisions like this.
I've said it before and I will say it again: trans is a fad. Those claiming to be gender incongruent number hundreds of times those who meet any serious medical definition of dysphoria and if people are getting pieces they were born with hacked off or taking hormone treatments that will permanently alter their bodies just because they want attention or, generously, they are miserable and seek some change to escape, then *something is very freaking wrong.*
It's one thing to adopt a trendy hairstyle or clothing because Everybody's Doing It, it's something altogether different to be castrated. Teenagers are notorious for conforming with ephemeral styles but this is going way too far.
And that's for dysphoria. When it comes to the "nonbinary" thing I believe we should offer neither respect nor acknowledgment. It insults intelligence.
Yep, funnily enough I got hit with the old "this never happens" by a different Twitter user in response to this line. So I have a few examples lined up.
I think the current levels of trans identification are, in part, a fad (I do think there e are genuine trans people out there). But it's a fad that's going to leave a lot of people with serious regrets.
There is no question but that trans is a fad, and it has reached cult status. Most revealing is the rage; people of conviction should be able to articulate their positions as you do, it's the defensive who go directly to rage and feel the need to suppress other views.
I got back on Medium; I was extremely careful not to cross any lines of intolerance or exclusion. I wrote about Lia Thomas and asked how different it would be had he competed with women without getting breast implants and changing his pronoun. That's all. I awoke to find I am banned again.
The fact that 13yo girls are getting elective surgery that most of them will live to regret means that reasonable people need to push back on this, debate is urgently needed, and debate is suppressed.
But it won't be on Medium. No matter how many times I clicked away trans articles with "I want to see less of this," they were replaced by others. No software, no politics. All trans all the time.
Damn! I cannot click the "like" and put a little heart on a story describing what happened to you.
While I try to not take partisan political positions, honesty dictates that I see the silencing of decent to be largely from the radical left. It pushes me hard to the right but seeing where that push has sent some of my right leaning friends it is not a place I wish to land.
Medium rarely pushed article related to what I have said that I want to see. Instead it sends the most radical and in denial of what they are writers on race, partisan politics, trans, America is irredeemably evil, etc. There are a few lotus flowers floating on the open sewer, but too few.
I could say much more but I don't want to go there with this comment. I'm genuinely sad, actually angered, to see what happened to you.
We know what's happening. They get a report from one of their coddled pseudo-minorities, they ban the writer. There is no appeal, there is no response. "Where did I break the rules?" Silence. I asked what would be different had Thomas not identified as trans, but competed as a man. I was called "incredibly transphobic."
These people are not far left. This is a cult. If you don't agree with an absurdity, you're n enemy to be crushed.
Oh, and they're organized. Medium probably received dozens of reports on my brief response from people who hadn't read it.
Sad, Medium used to be great.
I'm going to stick to writing about software and music now.
I understand your objection to my use of the left/right reference. It comes from the big tent anything but actual liberalism that accepts them. They mostly attack people, mostly on the right, who challenge the extremes of victim tribalism. No foul intended.
It's a bit like the story I've told about the draftee who arrived in my platoon openly expressing the idea that we were not the good guys. When the bullets flew, he was happy to be one of our guys. That shaped my thoughts that when someone decides that you are their enemy, where your skin, sex, ideology is a uniform to them in their "war", neutrality becomes impossible.
The rate of people claiming gender dysphoria appears to have asymmetry across geographic location. That seems to indicate a certain fadishness to me. And as you state, surgical or other medical intervention on minors is not just tragic but abusive.
These ideas about triple bathrooms are as ridiculous a single-entrance schools with high concrete walls. The costs of new facilities everywhere would be enormous andm given what a small minority they would serve, insupportable,
these are the passages that irritate me the most:
"We don't want to 'normalise' MEN in women's bathrooms. Why should we, we don't want them in our SSS. That women are saying #NO we don't accept MEN in women's spaces full stop, doesn't seem to be a good enough reason for you. Why is that?"
Is this the Royal We? Does she have a mouse in her pocket? And guaranteed if you cite women who disagree with her, she will say "We're not a monolith", and then go back speaking for all women 5 minutes later
""We're not a monolith", and then go back speaking for all women 5 minutes later"
😅 Yep, absolutely. I notice this tactic a lot amongst people whose arguments aren't strong or well-thought out enough, so they hide behind their group identity (and, of course, try to disqualify your opinion because your group identity isn't "correct").
I wonder what the stats are on trans criminal activity in women's bathroom? I am sympathetic to the idea that a bathroom is an extremely vulnerable location. You are often alone with your pants down!
And I wonder what the crime is against trans women who use the mens bathroom. ALSO a very vulnerable situation!
I tend to agree with you regarding sports. Reality will show the silliness of the current ridiculous position. Indeed I predict we will have some national or international org that will declare trans women can compete in a very strength dominated sport (like running) then some trans woman will establish a world wide record well beyond the capability of all biological women. That situation will generate outrage year after year until it the law is reversed. hopefully that event will herald reality's voice more broadly into these discussions.
All that said, I am tentatively in favor of trans women using women's restrooms. But for me it all comes down to the numbers. If even a modest number of molestations occurred it would be enough to change all women's perceived and actual safety. Thus I wonder... what are the numbers? (not sure if you would know)
"I wonder what the stats are on trans criminal activity in women's bathroom?"
Yeah, I've been wanting to get a clearer picture of this for a while now. Sadly, the way incidents like that are reported and recorded means that it's almost impossible to get figures that are even halfway meaningful. But the larger problem is, it's not just about criminal activity. It's not a crime, for example, to leer at somebody in a way that makes them uncomfortable. I think too much of this debate focuses on rape, as if anything less than that is inconsequential.
But that said, I think bathrooms are the least controversial of all female spaces, mainly because, as I said, they're segregated by femininity rather than biological sex. Trans women who "pass" already use women's bathrooms without incident. And women's bathrooms have private stalls that (mostly) afford privacy. And besides that, for reasons I laid out in the conversation, forcing trans men to use female bathrooms would make it *easier* for perverts to enter women's bathrooms.
The debate is often framed as a "bathroom" issue, when really it's about the different needs and expectations for women in bathrooms vs changing rooms vs rape crisis centres. A pre-op trans woman can't use a female changing room without incident. And it's unreasonable to expect women and girls who aren't comfortable with penises in private spaces to simply ignore them. A woman in a rape crisis centre might reasonably expect that she's in a space that is free of males. Overriding her trauma to validate a trans woman is a call I find hard to justify (though, of course, trans people need support in cases where they're raped too). There are no easy answers. But it goes way beyond bathrooms.
As I said right at the top of this conversation, the problem is that we're not allowed to acknowledge that these issues are complex and need serious, careful thought. We're just supposed to pick a side, and yell at anybody who doesn't mindlessly spout the talking points for our side.
It's going to be difficult to track "trans criminal activity in women's bathrooms", as in many places any trans person committing a crime is recorded under their gender identity, without any annotation about their trans status.
Sports organization generally have rules about what's allowed already - typically requiring some maximum level of testosterone or some minimum time since going on hormones, but (1) differing by the sport, (2) differing by the organization, and (3) undergoing revision. But I take your point, that under current rules, somebody will set a record which biological women will never beat. This happens slowly because trans folk are pretty rare statistically (and some of them voluntarily abstain from competing with biological women), but since records are cumulative, over a number of decades the top women's sports records in many sports could be mostly held by trans women. I wonder if anybody will be quietly tracking which records are set by trans women, so they could be backed out later when people come to their senses?
If you haven't heard, the latest issue is non-binary folks in sports; in the case of citizen races, they want their own NB awards, with equal monetary stakes to the men's and women's, because doing otherwise would imply that some gender identities are better than others. An interesting side note is that in races which require some qualifying time to participate, the first pass by organizers was to set the NB qualifying times halfway between male and female qualifying times. However, NB folks who were "afab" think this is unfair to them, so they are agreeing with "amab"NB folks that the NB category should use the women's qualifying times.
It's almost as if sports should be divided by biological sex rather than by gender identity, or something radical like that - like letting afab NB use the women's qualifying time and amab NB would use the men's starting time.
"Sports organization generally have rules about what's allowed already - typically requiring some maximum level of testosterone or some minimum time since going on hormones,"
Yeah, there's a large body of evidence pointing out that these measures aren't adequate to eliminate advantage. A snapshot of testosterone levels is close to meaninglesss when trying to calculate biological advantage.
I've pointed out a few times that testosterone functions like a performance enhancing drug. And it's true in this case too. Consider Lance Armstrong, He cheated for years. But he was able to produce samples which met the requirements when necessary. Testosterone works similarly.
Once you've gone through male puberty, that flood of testosterone permanently changes your skeletal structure and density, your heart/lung size, your hand size and grip strength, these changes aren't affected by lowering testosterone. Also, if you train as a male athlete, you benefit from years of cardiovascular training, faster recovery, and connective tissue development that doesn't simply disappear.
The issue, I fear, is that sporting organisations, like many other organisations, are too afraid or captured to talk about this honestly. Although there are signs that that's changing.
yes to all of this. The way in which I think we might end up with an unbeatable record is for one of the THOUSANDS of XY elite athletes to decide to be trans for a bit. (This will only work for sports where gender identity attestation alone is the deciding factor.) For things like running it is literally the case there are more than a thousand XY that are faster than the fastest XX. It only takes 0.1% of 1% to decide that they were a little transy anyway. Their payoff is an unbeatable world record! that might be a much faster path than waiting for the small population of trans women to produce a super athlete.
They would receive a lot of hate and might well be banned permanently from competing, but it would make the point that self-identification is not enough. However, most elite sports organization don't accept self identification anyway (as I mentioned they have various rules).
Did you see how Zuby (https://www.youtube.com/c/ZubyMusic) set the UK women's lifting record - not seriously, and not for the records, but just to demonstrate it. You might find Zuby interesting in any case.
I have a simpler idea. You change sex or gender or whichever word is in fashion this hour you are ineligible for sports competition.
I don't see why we even need two bathrooms. Maybe (1) small urinal-only bathrooms for men who need to whiz and (2) larger bathrooms with stalls for women and for men who need to poop,
First principle: simplicity — Marcus Aurelius
I've seen almost just that in China. A public restroom with a common entry to an area with urinals along the wall on the right with a side view of urinating men. To the left the first passageway was to the ladies room. They did not walk past the urinals. Walking past that passageway led to the entrance to the men's stalls. The stalls had doors. Privacy for the squatting activity and nonchalance with regard to the standing activity.
Yeah, but most people here don't want that, and if you tie that to this issue it will set trans rights back decades
How so? I can understand most people not wanting that in the US, but what harm does it do to trans rights? The stalls all had privacy doors.
Sex-separated public toilets began in Paris in 1739. They eventually became standard because for much of history people relieved themselves wherever they pleased. I've seen this in Hanoi, a peasant woman squatting on the sidewalk and taking a dump. It's not common, and Vietnam doesn't ubiquitously smell like sewage as India does.
I can't imagine my idea taking hold in the prudish Puritan-descended USA. Too many would feel "uncomfortable." But in a lot European gyms the steam and sauna rooms are mixed gender.
I see no need to prohibit people from sports competition on that basis. Just have an open league available to all, and optional special leagues based on biology which must be objectively determined (eg: for biological women or for people with disabilities). A woman or disabled person would be able to compete in the open, or choose the special league if it exists. Identifying as a women or as disabled would not qualify one to compete in those special leagues but the open league would still be available to all. Trans athletes could compete in the open, or form their own special league. Simple enough.
I think you might want to run your idea about bathrooms past some women before volunteering them to participate in your vision. Sharing the overall space - outside of the stalls per se - feels unsafe to many of them. Otherwise they could just use the men's public restrooms today. Most don't think being protected from seeing men's backs while the men pee is the main rationale for segregated bathrooms.
Having separate individual bathrooms, each with their own door, sink and facilities, might meet that need better (rather than individual toilet stalls in a shared space). Or course, this is more expensive in money and space even for new buildings, and it would be a massive retrofit for existing buildings to achieve the same number of facilities as they now have. And it this option was rejected by the US government under Obama when schools offered it - the activists did not just want safety, they specifically wanted the experience of feeling included in a shared women's space, so one-person bathrooms were not enough.
"Just have an open league available to all, and optional special leagues based on biology which must be objectively determined"
Not really sure an open league makes sense. In practice, this would just be a men's league.
The purpose of women's leagues is to give women not just an opportunity to compete, but to win. To have their dedication recognised. To allow people like the Williams sisters and Sha'Carri Richardson and Katie Ledecky to become household names instead of the ~500th best athlete in the world in their respective sports.
I've suggested that trans women and women compete together, but have their medals and records recorded seperately. This is far from a perfect solution, I can foresee and understand female athletes complaining about not getting the satisfaction of crossing the line first, but whatever happens, simply having trans women and women compete is untenable long term if female sport is to continue to exist.
Steve, read the second half of the sentence you quoted.
A league for biological women (AFAB people) would be one of the special leagues which people may qualify for by objectively being, well, biological women. A league for people with disabilities could be another (think paralympics). If non-binary people and/or cross-sex trans folks wanted their own league, likewise they could organize one. If they are content with the open league, that's OK too.
One point of the open league is that nobody can say their "human right to participate in sports" (an asserted "human right" in some olympic literature cited by trans athletes) has been denied; everybody is welcome in the open league. At most, only their right to qualify for some special league would be in question, which is not a human right.
It's true that it's likely that the large bulk of the open league would consist of AMAB athletes, but only to the extent that there is some inherent advantage, not because somebody else has been excluded. Only the special leagues would require qualifications.
In most sports, an alternative women's league would be quickly organized (for something like competitive shooting, it might not be needed). And a league for people with disabilities would likely follow in many cases. (etc)
But if they wanted, people who qualified for one of the special leagues could play in the open league instead - their choice.
They could use a different word than "special" to describe the alternative leagues, I'm not attached to the name. But the concept is "an alternative option for a clearly identifiable group of people who have an objective disadvantage which makes it unlikely that they could usually win in the open".
"A league for biological women (AFAB people) would be one of the special leagues which people may qualify for by objectively being, well, biological women."
Yeah, I saw that. I guess what I'm objecting to is a) the notion of an open league that is "available to all." As I said, this would, for all intents and purposes, be a men's league, so you'd have a men's league and a bunch of other "special leagues". I get the impression that people without direct experience of high-level athletics don't fully grasp the size of the performance differences between elite males and females. As I said, there are only a handful of sports where the top female athlete would break the top 500 in the world. Nobody knows the name of the 500th best sprinter in the world.
And b) I'm objecting to classifying female sports as a "special league." The purpose of female sport is to put female athletes on an equal footing with male athletes in terms of legitimacy and prestige. You say we could use "a different word than 'special'", but in a sane world, the word would remain, simply, "female." You're talking about female sport as if it's a hypothetical that "could" be implemented instead of a de-facto division that's existed for decades. 😅
The point you make about trans people's human right to compete in sport is interesting. I'm not a fan of the "nobody is saying..." formulation, but literally nobody is saying that trans people can't compete in sport. Nobody is denying them that right. The question is whether trans women, who are male (AMAB terminology obfuscates the fact that they *are* male not "assigned" male), should get to compete against females or whether they should compete against other males.
If anybody should have a special league, it's the small number of elite athletes whose bodies, due to hormone treatments, are best described as something like "male-minus" or "female-plus".
> "I'm objecting to classifying female sports as a "'special league' "
Again, the word "special" may have been used in haste, let's not over-focus on it. We could use "qualified" or "limited".
I'm not trying to be repetitive, but there appear to me to be some subtle differences in framing between what I'm suggesting, and what you seem to be responding to, so I'll attempt to rephrase to convey it more clearly.
The *concept* is having an open league which is available to everybody, and if needed having one or more optional leagues to handle this pair of dynamics: (1) They are meant to create an easier alternative environment for a distinct population which has significant objective disadvantages within the open league (ie: a new league where winning requires lower performance than in the open by design), and (2) They are not 'open' to all, but limited to the specific group in question.
These two characteristics are tied to each other. If there isn't a performance gap between the qualified league and the open, then there would be no purpose to the qualified league. If it's easier to win in the qualified league, then that league would need to limit participation to those qualified for that league.
This could include leagues for biological women (since there is a substantial objective difference in most sports), or for people with disabilities. However, this would not include league for blue eyed people, nor for Republicans, because there is no objective performance difference requiring it. And if for some sport there is no meaningful difference in average performance among biological men and biological women, there would be no need for an optional league for which one needs to be a biological woman.
Part of the point here is to be sure that nobody is excluded from the open, and that alternative leagues for which one must qualify, are based on real world performance disadvantages of the group compared to the open. That would make biological sex a valid distinction (if it has performance disparities across that distinction), but gender identification would be no more relevant than religious identification.
A biological man (of any gender identity, including non-binary) would be accepted in the open, but not qualified for a league organized for biological women. A biological woman would qualify for the latter, regardless of gender identity (with the possible caveat of testosterone limits).
If a given biological woman is good enough to compete in the open (for some sport, likely one where the sex-based disparities are small), she would be welcome - there are no requirement to qualify. For some things, like a citizen's foot race, substitute "is willing to accept a place lower in the rankings" for "is good enough to compete".
The horseshoe reappears, ugh. Debating with these extremists on either side is like debating with a fever. Or hot air.
Yep. It's not often that I get to take this side of the debate, so I wanted to show how both sides are susceptible to unreasonableness. The argument on both sides is driven by fear, so sadly emotions always run high.
A shortcoming of binary thinking in general. Friend-foe, edible-inedible, true-false, etc. The real world is not binary. We can make binary decisions with regard to a bunch of analog data that can be a matter of life and death. Real life is full of grey areas not obviously a black or white binary. People are making binary yes-no value judgments where their bias does not allow for precision much beyond a binary yes-no view of the gray data. The binary value should be at the end of the logical thought process, not the beginning.
"Real life is full of grey areas not obviously a black or white binary."
This is really the source of 90% of my arguments on line, People who are simply unwilling to acknowledge that there are perspectives other than their own that aren't motivated by hatred or evil or stupidity. The world is too complex to take a "no-compromise" position on pretty much any issue. Some people find this fact terrifying.
Reminder that "you are not entitled to your own facts." Some things truly are matters of fact and have no element of opinion or perspective. There should be "no compromise" on the fact that Trump lost the 2020 election. There should be "no compromise" on the fact the Capitol was invaded by a violent mob, there should be "no compromise" that they were not tourists or "merely exercising their free speech rights."
We are living in dangerous times. Whether its the acceptance of indisputable political falsehood or the claim that a man in a dress is a woman, we have entered an epistemological crisis and we are learning what a fragile retrofit logic is.
God help us.
Many things are intrinsically binary and sex is pretty much one of them. From elementary particles on up, one-or-the-other is the rule.
I see the choice of the word "nonbinary" as an intentional scold, implying that people who see male/female as the polarity it clearly is are in some way mentally deficient. They could call themselves "intermediate gender" but that would not only fail to condescend, it would highlight the absurdity of their claim.
I'm not defending the "non-binary" abuse of language. Not holding all of the "standard" traits pertaining to something does not make the something not the something.
Distantly related to the topic here, would like feedback from the readers. Steve, this is probably out of line but I can find no way to write to you privately. Feel free to delete, but I would still like your reaction.
https://medium.com/@synthcomposer/5d868e6f1e77
Not out of line, and to the point. That was a good read on how things can go beyond usefulness and become counterproductive.
There appears to be a great deal of diversity within the community of homosexuals. With both men and women there is a range from hypermasculine to hyperfeminine. "Normal" (unnoticed inn everyday activity even if not closeted) to flamboyantly and purposefully shocking. That first divide is fine, the second may need a divorce. Matching together seems to me to have outlived it's usefulness.
Where is the line between people with nonstandard gender traits and gender dysphoria to be drawn? In fact, this I don't know, what is the difference in someone who is happy to have any kind of sex with anyone and an actual homosexual which I assume goes beyond sexual roles to something more fundamental in makeup. I can't help but notice that the word homosexual is focused on an activity and may be bypassing something more important. You might be able to answer that.
Sexual orientation refers to attraction and arousal, not behavior. A man might never have sex in his life but if he's aroused by men then he's gay. And plenty of people who have gay sex (prostitutes, prisoners) aren't actually gay.
Male bisexuality is actually pretty rare. So called bisexual men tend to lean heavily one way or the other and it's almost always gay. I've read that bisexual women are more common.
As for definitions of dysphoria, there are fairly solid definitions in medicine as there must be since meeting the criteria is a requirement for gender reassignment.
The effeminate gay man was a behavioral choice in my experience, I knew plenty of them who would turn it on when they had an audience and turn it off once once the offendees had walked on. I went through all that for a few months when I came out but remember it with shame and got over it. But hey, I never bought any Judy Garland records.
Thanks for the clarification.
"performing double mastectomies on children."
Is this actually happening? That is grotesque. Nobody not yet an adult should be allowed to make decisions like this.
I've said it before and I will say it again: trans is a fad. Those claiming to be gender incongruent number hundreds of times those who meet any serious medical definition of dysphoria and if people are getting pieces they were born with hacked off or taking hormone treatments that will permanently alter their bodies just because they want attention or, generously, they are miserable and seek some change to escape, then *something is very freaking wrong.*
It's one thing to adopt a trendy hairstyle or clothing because Everybody's Doing It, it's something altogether different to be castrated. Teenagers are notorious for conforming with ephemeral styles but this is going way too far.
And that's for dysphoria. When it comes to the "nonbinary" thing I believe we should offer neither respect nor acknowledgment. It insults intelligence.
"Is this actually happening? That is grotesque."
Yep, funnily enough I got hit with the old "this never happens" by a different Twitter user in response to this line. So I have a few examples lined up.
Not only are there doctors promoting "top surgery" (the nice, sanitised double-speak for "bilateral mastectomy") to kids on Tik Tok (https://www.tiktok.com/@gendersurgeon/video/6889485602199227653?_t=8SorXk0MjbB&_r=1).
You can find those same doctors posing alongside their 13-year-old patients (https://twitter.com/StandingforXX/status/1472988554125058049?s=20&t=B3J6FdZc5IX-fA5_WA329Q).
And accounts from 16-year-olds who had their mastectomies 5 months after first questioning their gender and are now filled with regret (https://twitter.com/steevqj/status/1532264113518391299?s=20&t=B3J6FdZc5IX-fA5_WA329Q).
Genital surgery is prohibited for children under-18, but mastectomies, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are available much earlier (https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-nightly/2022/03/25/the-transgender-care-that-states-are-banning-explained-00020580).
I think the current levels of trans identification are, in part, a fad (I do think there e are genuine trans people out there). But it's a fad that's going to leave a lot of people with serious regrets.
There is no question but that trans is a fad, and it has reached cult status. Most revealing is the rage; people of conviction should be able to articulate their positions as you do, it's the defensive who go directly to rage and feel the need to suppress other views.
I got back on Medium; I was extremely careful not to cross any lines of intolerance or exclusion. I wrote about Lia Thomas and asked how different it would be had he competed with women without getting breast implants and changing his pronoun. That's all. I awoke to find I am banned again.
The fact that 13yo girls are getting elective surgery that most of them will live to regret means that reasonable people need to push back on this, debate is urgently needed, and debate is suppressed.
But it won't be on Medium. No matter how many times I clicked away trans articles with "I want to see less of this," they were replaced by others. No software, no politics. All trans all the time.
Damn! I cannot click the "like" and put a little heart on a story describing what happened to you.
While I try to not take partisan political positions, honesty dictates that I see the silencing of decent to be largely from the radical left. It pushes me hard to the right but seeing where that push has sent some of my right leaning friends it is not a place I wish to land.
Medium rarely pushed article related to what I have said that I want to see. Instead it sends the most radical and in denial of what they are writers on race, partisan politics, trans, America is irredeemably evil, etc. There are a few lotus flowers floating on the open sewer, but too few.
I could say much more but I don't want to go there with this comment. I'm genuinely sad, actually angered, to see what happened to you.
We know what's happening. They get a report from one of their coddled pseudo-minorities, they ban the writer. There is no appeal, there is no response. "Where did I break the rules?" Silence. I asked what would be different had Thomas not identified as trans, but competed as a man. I was called "incredibly transphobic."
These people are not far left. This is a cult. If you don't agree with an absurdity, you're n enemy to be crushed.
Oh, and they're organized. Medium probably received dozens of reports on my brief response from people who hadn't read it.
Sad, Medium used to be great.
I'm going to stick to writing about software and music now.
I understand your objection to my use of the left/right reference. It comes from the big tent anything but actual liberalism that accepts them. They mostly attack people, mostly on the right, who challenge the extremes of victim tribalism. No foul intended.
It's a bit like the story I've told about the draftee who arrived in my platoon openly expressing the idea that we were not the good guys. When the bullets flew, he was happy to be one of our guys. That shaped my thoughts that when someone decides that you are their enemy, where your skin, sex, ideology is a uniform to them in their "war", neutrality becomes impossible.
The "like" is for your last paragraph, what came before it is horrifying.
The rate of people claiming gender dysphoria appears to have asymmetry across geographic location. That seems to indicate a certain fadishness to me. And as you state, surgical or other medical intervention on minors is not just tragic but abusive.
These ideas about triple bathrooms are as ridiculous a single-entrance schools with high concrete walls. The costs of new facilities everywhere would be enormous andm given what a small minority they would serve, insupportable,