What love isn't

[california boy]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.

I "identify" as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I was baptized as a child.  I served a mission.  I married in the temple.  I attend church services regularly.  I have held callings for all of my adult life.  I publicly hold myself out as a member.  I profess belief in the doctrines and sustain the leaders of the Church.  And above all that, my name is on the records of the Church.

Conversely, if I "identify" as a wolf, that does not make me a wolf.  I may adopt lupine behaviors and attributes, but that does not make me a wolf.  As much as I want to be a wolf, my wanting does not make it so.  Me telling myself every day that I am a wolf, and having others affirm this to me, will not make a wolf.  

Similarly, if I "identify" as a mother, that does not make me one.  Even though "mother" is a social construct, it is inextricably linked to the female sex.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds to me is all you are providing is proof that you identify as a Mormon, which really isn't in dispute.  That really. wasn't the point of my post.

Quote

 

What is ironic on a Mormon board is that all of your arguments could also apply to your identification as a Mormon. There are people who would insist on not validating your beliefs or your identity.  They would call you delusional and feel like they too are forced to accept that you have a freedom to have your religious beliefs.  They are infuriated that you get tax breaks to indulge in your own fetish because you are forcing them to accept that lack of tax revenue being withheld because of your delusional personal beliefs and identity.  

I am not trying to debate you. What I hope is that you will take a step back and consider what you are actually arguing here and consider the mote/beam teaching of Christ.  

 

 

[pogi]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

All evidence to the contrary.  I'm conversing with people who disagree with me about this.  I am reading what they are saying about this.

You are reading what we are saying in your context of language, not by standard dictionary definitions of gender.  Your arguments lay dull and flat in light of how society uses this language.  

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean by "species equivalent to gender."  

What is the word that describes how a person psychologically identifies as a species?  There isn't one.  It doesn't exist.  There is no social construct around that idea.  When it comes to sex, there is a word that describes how a person psychological identifies as a sex.  That is what I mean that there is no equivalent to "gender" in reference to how a person identifies as a species.  Sex is biological nomenclature, as is sex.  Gender is a psychological and social construct of identity in regards to sex.  What is the equivalent in regards to species?  Again, it doesn't exist.  There is no equivalent term.  There is no social construct around that idea.  We don't even have the language.  There is no medical term or diagnosis. There is nothing.  It doesn't exist socially.  So, to compare how a person identifies as a species is not equivalent to how a person identifies as a gender.   One is biological fact (wolf/human), the other is a social construct (gender).  Not equivalent. 

Quote

The distinction you are drawing here is really quite new, so new that I question its overall utility.  See here:

You can argue about its utility if you want, but from the perspective of someone suffering with, or treating,  gender dysphoria, there may be some utility.   No doubt that it will create unfairness with sports, if sports chooses distinguish based on gender instead of biological sex.  That is up to these sports institutions to decide.  They can do whatever they want, but I agree, I think it is unfair.  But life isn't fair.  Social constructs are rarely balanced and fair for all.  I think trans people know all too well about unfairness. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Kinda makes you wonder, then, if the "distinction" has been only recently fabricated to justify socially popular trends.

 There is no doubt about it.  The question is are those socially popular trends popular for good reasons?  You may think not, but society gets to decide and create these social constructs. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think Justice Scalia is correct.

So for you to say that "gender" and "sex" are severable is like saying "feminine" and "female" are severable, or "masculine" and "male" are.  I just don't think that works.  I think they are inherently linked.

Justice Scalia doesn't get to dictate social constructs such as gender and sports.  

Feminine and female are not severable terms?  Seriously?  You have never met a feminine male or a masculine female? 

Quote

Also, using all caps and multiple exclamation marks does not persuade.

I am using it for emphasis, not as a form of persuasion.  Are you going to attack my linguistic/artistic preference and style now?  

Quote

So do sex-based distinctions.  

?

Quote

"Society treating a human doing as a wolf is not a falsehood."

Except, it is.

?

Quote

 

Personhood is a social construct.  American society denied personhood to black Africans for hundreds of years.  And it was a falsehood to do so, because they were persons.

Do you agree?

 

Personhood is a social construct.  I agree that it was wrong to deny blacks personhood based on stupid social constructs.  I think that inseparably linking sex and gender is another stupid social construct that should be done away with that has been around for hundreds of years.

Quote

Perhaps "what society says" is not always definitive.

Yep, that is why we are seeing changes happening in regards to gender identity.

Quote

There are tons of examples of society establishing "constructs" that do not accord with science, reason, morality, etc.  

I agree.  Slavery was a good example.

Quote

I don't deny that there is a moral component to my argument. 

I fail to see it.

Quote

A "social construct" is "an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society."  I reject the notion that "gender" is purely a "social construct." 

You accept that "personhood" is a social construct, but not "gender"?  Why?  

Quote

First of all, distinguishing "gender" from "sex" is a very recent thing, and severing them from each other completely is just off the wall loopy.

Not distinguishing blacks from personhood was once a "very recent thing".  The novelty doesn't make it immoral or wrong. 

Now you are just being condescending and rude. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet here you are, speaking definitively and beratingly about a concept that is only a few decades old.

You can view yourself as a victim if you want.  I am not speaking definitely.  On the contrary, I am suggesting things are very "fluid".  Gender is whatever society says it is.  You are the one definitively suggesting black and white rules here that cannot be violated without creating falsehoods.  I am suggesting that it is up to society.  You seem to be berating society and questioning their judgment and calling them "off the wall loopy".  You are not the victim here.  You are the one seeing things in black and white terms and being condescending to everyone who disagrees with your absoluteness.   

Quote

 

Slavery was "a social construct" (defined as "an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society"), and yet we cannot deny that it also had real-world ramifications.

"Gender identity" is a newly-minted "social construct," but it also has real-world ramifications.

There are also moral components to both.

 

I agree.

Gees, responding to you is time consuming.  How do you do it?

Edited January 7, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

This confuses me though. What is an example of something feminine that is also something female?

I think Scalia was using "female" as a noun (not as an adjective).

It's kind of hard to say, though, as the "sex/gender" distinction is very new.  As in within the lifetime of some people on this board.  See here:

Quote

As a social role

Sexologist John Money coined the term gender role, and was the first to use it in print in a scientific trade journal. In a seminal 1955 paper he defined it as "all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman."^[33]

The modern academic sense of the word, in the context of social roles of men and women, dates at least back to 1945,^[34] and was popularized and developed by the feminist movement from the 1970s onwards (see § Feminism theory and gender studies below), which theorizes that human nature is essentially epicene and social distinctions based on sex are arbitrarily constructed. In this context, matters pertaining to this theoretical process of social construction were labelled matters of gender.

The popular use of gender simply as an alternative to sex (as a biological category) is also widespread, although attempts are still made to preserve the distinction. The American Heritage Dictionary (2000) uses the following two sentences to illustrate the difference, noting that the distinction "is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels."^[35]

The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient.
In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Scalia was using "female" as a noun (not as an adjective).

It's kind of hard to say, though, as the "sex/gender" distinction is very new.  As in within the lifetime of some people on this board.  See here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Good grief. I now think I've been off on my understanding this whole time. And I'm fearful of taking this thread further from its intent. But what does "The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient" even mean? How can a medication depend on gender? I'm using the 2nd definition of gender as "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" from Merriam Webster.

As a side note, I do not have an issue with your style of commentary. You mostly ask questions that need to be answered. I too am confused by most of the answers given. : ( 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Vanguard

[BlueDreams]

On 1/5/2022 at 11:06 AM, Nofear said:

While not always the most articulately written, the general sentiment is nonetheless one I agree with. Even the vile, transphobic, mysogynistic, hate-spewing Jordan Peterson's comment: “If I am forced into a position where I have to validate your identity … What if your identity is wrong? What if it’s pathological? What if it doesn’t serve you well? … and if I start validating you, do you think I am your friend?  I am not your friend at all, I am a mirror for your narcissism.” ~Jordan Peterson

https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/tolerance/what-love-isnt/

Funny enough, this week I was doing therapy with an actual narcissist (fits enough of the criteria for NPD, though is mild in presentation compared to more grandiose or malignant varieties). It’s actually pretty rare to keep a narcissist in therapy because it entails digging into people’s vulnerabilities…and that’s kinda a big no-no for them.

so that balance of validation and love (that I’m going to define as care/understanding for the person) is constantly tested. If I’m not careful, I can fall into their presentation of facts that subtly work to build the best picture of them, often at the expense of others and any real healing work. But no/little validation is definitely not the answer…their humanity is then lost and I start interacting with a disorder not a human who’s trauma has fueled by an unhealthy coping mechanism or two.  
 

My point is that even in a situation with an actual narcissist, validation to some degree is absolutely needed. It is the mechanism that allows people to be seen and heard. It’s healing in its own right.  
 

to me what determines what one States to another needs to be weighed out carefully in most circumstances. These are a couple questions that I think come to play when weighing validation with critique or concerns. 
- how close are you to this person? 
- Are they actually seeking advice? 
- Do you actually know what you’re talking about? —> this can go in both subject matter and this person’s general life.

- are you willing to participate in the hard work of change with them? How invested are you in actually being there for them or helping them work through the problem you’re pointing out? 
 

for most individuals who are not particularly close to a person or know much about an issue beyond maybe a handful of articles/discussions it’s probably best and err on the side of respectful validation and humility. What this looks like for me is emphasizing what I DON’T know profusely before ever giving another who’s directly in the thick of it my opinion on a matter. It’s giving space to be corrected after I give it or to at least share their opinion or experience.  In other words it leans more to discussion and less to correction of any form. 
 

when I do know something or am close to a person it’s still with a lot of validation to who they are and what they experience. But it’s also strongly layered with humility for how much work it is for any individual to change and awareness that it’s never easy to receive critique. It also comes with the expectation that I’m willing to help them. That may be by listening to them and showing an appropriate amount of support. It may be by checking in to see what’s happened to them since. It may be something else all together. 
 

Lastly are they actually seeking advice or guidance on that specific problem or aspect of themselves. If not, then it’s honestly probably better just to zip it. Not because it is isn’t a concern but because it’s not going to go anywhere good if you do. I could give you so many examples of my doing just that to prove it 😅
 

My biggest problem with the statement isn’t that it’s not technically true. It technically is a good point. It’s that it often glides over what then healing forms of love actually entails. It then creates another equally problematic stance that doesn’t give a ground complicated messy love that most humans need…and instead just give space to validate our sense of judgment on other people’s live. and just as it can be a fine line between validation and enabling. There is most definitely a fine line between speaking truth and being judgmental or harsh in one’s approach. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It also comes with the expectation that I’m willing to help them. That may be by listening to them and showing an appropriate amount of support. It may be by checking in to see what’s happened to them since. It may be something else all together. 

This is so very important. Don’t push someone off their stool just to show them how unstable it is (in your view) if you aren’t going to be around to help them back up.  That is not helping them, that is satisfying your own ego.

[Stormin' Mormon]

I'm late to the party and the discussion has moved on, but I wanted to provide my two cents about what it means to validate someone's feelings, identity, or perspective.

In the field of logic, a valid argument need not start with true premises. If the reasoning used to get from premise to conclusion is sound, then the argument is valid.

Importing that into the field of interpersonal relationships means that I can validate someone by understanding (or attempting to understand) how they arrived at their particular feeling, identity, or perspective.

As in logic, validating a person does not mean I accept their premises as true. It merely means that given the premises they started with, I can understand how they arrived at their conclusion.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[Rain]

This all goes with many things Elder Scott talked about- if a person can feel love from you they can feel love from Heavenly Father better. If they can feel love from Heavenly Father it helps them make changes in their lives.

We quote that whom the Lord loves he chastens.  I can definitely say in my own experience He has never chastened me when I couldn't feel his love. He might let me feel hard consequences, but he doesn't chasten me without me really feeling that love first and through the chastening.

[kimpearson]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

In my view, letting someone's subjective choice to "identify" as something they are not is on its own, pretty harmless.  But we are not being asked to this "on its own."  We are being told that we need to go along with these things, submit to them, agree with them, celebrate them, and allow the natural and foreseeable consequences of them . . . sometimes.  Hence we  have biological males being transferred into women's prisons, despite the fact that "an overwhelming majority of American voters — 77% — do not want to see male-bodied persons housed in women’s prison."  And we have biological males dominating women's sports.  And so on.

I have a couple of questions for you.  First of all give me 5 examples of "biological" males dominating women's sports.  A transgender woman breaking some university records is not dominating women's sports.  Is that transgender woman breaking NCAA records, world records, USA records.  Is she even dominating the sports conference she is in?

Second , please tell me what actions are being forced on you that are egregious and hurt you or anyone other than it makes you feel uncomfortable.  Transgender women in prisons have hurt no one and actually are safer than if they stayed in men's prisons.  You are a lawyer.  Go review the murder rate of transgender women.  But maybe you are arguing that it would be better to leave a transgender woman in a men's prison because it is more likely they will be abused or killed.

[carbon dioxide]

53 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I have a couple of questions for you.  First of all give me 5 examples of "biological" males dominating women's sports.  A transgender woman breaking some university records is not dominating women's sports.  Is that transgender woman breaking NCAA records, world records, USA records.  Is she even dominating the sports conference she is in?

Second , please tell me what actions are being forced on you that are egregious and hurt you or anyone other than it makes you feel uncomfortable.  Transgender women in prisons have hurt no one and actually are safer than if they stayed in men's prisons.  You are a lawyer.  Go review the murder rate of transgender women.  But maybe you are arguing that it would be better to leave a transgender woman in a men's prison because it is more likely they will be abused or killed.

The are not enough trans “women” to dominate women’s team sports.  It is the individual events where it can be a problem.  

Edited January 7, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/5/2022 at 2:25 PM, Fether said:

Perhaps it’s more along the lines of validating that you understand them. In sales, when I am talking to someone and they are sharing their feelings, whether their feelings make sense or not, I try to understand and validate that I recognize that I know what they are feeling. I ask further questions on it.
 

Doing so helps them feel more comfortable talking to me.

I wonder if there is a risk of such a thing backfiring. If, in the process of my being “validated,” I get the impression, however mistaken it might be, that the person is agreeing with me, and I subsequently come to understand that this isn’t the case at all, I’m apt to feel patronized, even manipulated. At that point, “feeling more comfortable talking to” the person is the last thing I’m apt to do. 
 

Perhaps what is happening here is a conflating of terms and concepts: “validation” conflated with respect, courtesy, consideration, kindness, empathy. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The are not enough trans “women” to dominate women’s team sports.  It is the individual events where it can be a problem.  

Give me an example of five individuals events where a transgender woman has dominated.

[Nofear]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder if there is a risk of such a thing backfiring. If, in the process of my being “validated,” I get the impression, however mistaken it might be, that the person is agreeing with me, and I subsequently come to understand that this isn’t the case at all, I’m apt to feel patronized, even manipulated. At that point, “feeling more comfortable talking to” the person is the last thing I’m apt to do. 
 

Perhaps what is happening here is a conflating of terms and concepts: “validation” conflated with respect, courtesy, consideration, kindness, empathy. 

As Elder Holland points out, it is a delicate balancing act (in his now infamous talk among some circles).

"We have to be careful that A) love and empathy do not get interpreted as B) condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, ‘Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.’ We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.” [reference letters added]

For some "validation" means only A), for others "validation" also means B) as discussed at length between bluebell and smac97.
I guess the question might be asked if an individual expresses love and empathy is there any fault with that person if the second person interprets that love and empathy as also condoning and advocacy?

Edited January 7, 2022 by Nofear

[pogi]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps what is happening here is a conflating of terms and concepts: “validation” conflated with respect, courtesy, consideration, kindness, empathy. 

I don't think that respect, courtesy, consideration, kindness, and empathy are possible without validation.   That is what validation is rooted in - consideration and empathy for another's perspective followed kindness in response.   If you are not validating their feelings, how exactly are you being empathetic with their feelings and considerate?  Where is the respect?   Where is the kindness in suggesting that their feelings are not acceptable?  One can be accepting of another person without agreeing or approving

I think what is more likely happening is a conflation of different terms and concepts: "validation" conflated with agreement or approval.  

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pieces-mind/201204/understanding-validation-way-communicate-acceptance

Edited January 7, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think that respect, courtesy, consideration, kindness, and empathy are possible without validation.   That is what validation is rooted in - consideration and empathy for another's perspective followed kindness in response.   If you are not validating their feelings, how exactly are you being empathetic with their feelings and considerate?  Where is the respect?   Where is the kindness in suggesting that their feelings are not acceptable?  One can be accepting of another person without agreeing or approving

I think what is more likely happening is a conflation of different terms and concepts: "validation" conflated with agreement or approval.  

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pieces-mind/201204/understanding-validation-way-communicate-acceptance

 I appreciate the sentiment. I think validation is being conflated with both concepts. And the conflation in both instances is justified depending on the context.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

As Elder Holland points out, it is a delicate balancing act (in his now infamous talk among some circles).

"We have to be careful that A) love and empathy do not get interpreted as B) condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, ‘Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.’

I don't think any of us here are saying that either.  That's not what validation of feelings is.

And if you really do it well you do it like Stephen Covey taught the concept which means it is not one sided.

 

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.” [reference letters added]

For some "validation" means only A), for others "validation" also means B) as discussed at length between bluebell and smac97.
I guess the question might be asked if an individual expresses love and empathy is there any fault with that person if the second person interprets that love and empathy as also condoning and advocacy?

 

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the conflation in both instances is justified depending on the context.

PSA: Justification is chronically divorced from benevolence, is commonly at odds with being directly helpful.

Thank you. That is all.

[smac97]

9 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Give me an example of five individuals events where a transgender woman has dominated.

The ones that have gotten the most news coverage (that I have heard about) :

• Lia Thomas
• Laurel Hubbard
• Rachel McKinnon
• Cece Telfer
• Andraya Yearwood
• Terry Miller
• June Eastwood

This website has a fairly extensive list of biological males who have competed or are competing in female sports.

This July 2021 article in the Deseret News is quite informative and even-handed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The ones that have gotten the most news coverage (that I have heard about) :

• Lia Thomas
• Laurel Hubbard
• Rachel McKinnon
• Cece Telfer
• Andraya Yearwood
• Terry Miller
• June Eastwood

This website has a fairly extensive list of biological males who have competed or are competing in female sports.

This July 2021 article in the Deseret News is quite informative and even-handed.

Thanks,

-Smac

In principal, I agree that there should be a level playing field in woman's sports.  I don't think it is any secret that men naturally perform better in sports than women.  But I also don't beieve that transgenders should automatically be banned from participating in sports.  With the hormonal requirements to transition, it also wouldn't be fair for these athletes to compete in the male sports for the exact same reasons.  It is finding that balance of fairness without discriminating.  It seems like the IOC is taking a reasonable approach to deal with this issue.

 

Quote

 

Hard science 

In 2016, the IOC established new rules that allow male-to-female transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports if their testosterone is below 10 nanomoles per liter for 12 months, and surgery is not required. The allowable testosterone level is still extremely high by female standards — the average is 2.6 nmol/L for women and 23 nmol/L for men. In other words, the system already has excessive latitude built into it — so much latitude that even after hormone-suppression therapy, transgender athletes could still be in the normal male range and be “legal” for women’s competition. 

 

 

 

This seems like a good step forward in leveling the playing field.  If that standard is not adequate then it should be reviewed and reevaluated. If there are women who fall within the testosterone level as the trans athletes, then they should get their chance to compete.  Let science lead the way rather than prejudice.

 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

In principal, I agree that there should be a level playing field in woman's sports.  I don't think it is any secret that men naturally perform better in sports than women.  But I also don't beieve that transgenders should automatically be banned from participating in sports.  With the hormonal requirements to transition, it also wouldn't be fair for these athletes to compete in the male sports for the exact same reasons.  It is finding that balance of fairness without discriminating.  It seems like the IOC is taking a reasonable approach to deal with this issue.

 

 

 

This seems like a good step forward in leveling the playing field.  If that standard is not adequate then it should be reviewed and reevaluated. If there are women who fall within the testosterone level as the trans athletes, then they should get their chance to compete.  Let science lead the way rather than prejudice.

 

I've read the IOC has changed some guidelines, recognizing that that they weren't working or always fair.  Hopefully the new guidelines will work better, but I do think there is still a lot of work to do.  If a transgender woman starts competing and easily breaks records previously held by women that's probably a sign that the competition is no longer fair to the women that are competing. 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

In principal, I agree that there should be a level playing field in woman's sports.  I don't think it is any secret that men naturally perform better in sports than women.  

Although I agree with you, there seems to be plenty of effort to argue that trans women do not "naturally perform bettern in sports."

See, e.g., this article from Joanna Harper (a medical physicist and herself a transgender athlete) from August 2021: Joanna Harper: Trans women aren’t taking over sports. We’d have noticed by now

Quote

I believe that the current IOC guidelines are appropriate to allow fair competition at the Olympics between trans women and cisgender women. The IOC first put in rules in 2004 and Tokyo 2020 will be the first time that we see trans women competing. There are likely to be only one or two trans women competing in the games, and that is a substantial under-representation by population. Trans women are not going to dominate the games, they probably won’t win any medals, and I do think that these IOC guidelines are appropriate.

However, see also these comments, also from Joanna Harper, from July 2021:

Quote

Do trans women have an advantage when competing in elite sports?

Without hormone therapy — yes. But even with hormone therapy, current research suggests trans women still maintain an edge in strength.  

"Pretty much any way you slice it, trans women are going to have strength advantages even after hormone therapy. I just don't see that as anything else but factual," said Joanna Harper, a medical physicist at Britain's Loughborough University.  

So she's saying that "{p}retty much any way you slice it" trans women "have strength advantages," but they nevertheless "are not going to dominate the games, they probably won’t win any medals"?

I wonder if these can be reconciled.  Perhaps the trans women are, biologically, "male" athletes who are so-so, and therefore end up not quite having the athleticism to win against top-notch female athletes.

If we think of athleticism as a bell curve, this begins to make sense.  See, e.g., here:

 

There are clearly nontrivial numbers of women who are stronger than some men in terms of grip strength, but overall men are stronger.

And here:

Again, a pretty good overlap.  A sizable subset of women are as strong or stronger than a sizable subset of men."  But this graph illustrates what I think most of us know intuitively/experientially, which is that this physically strongest subset of women are only comparable to the physically weaker subset of men.  In a competition, then, so-so male athletes may or may not "dominate" because they are competing with the top-notch female athletes in that muddled middle.  In a competition between top-notch male athletes against top-notch female athletes, the males would "dominate."  See, e.g., here:

Boy, Riggs sure was a jerk.

Also, I note here that the current debate is very asymmetrical.  Nobody is expressing concern about female-to-male athletes having a physical advantage.

This article goes into some detail: On Transgender athletes and performance advantages

This article has some interesting things to say:

Quote

Sports should create 'universal' categories because transgender women DO have an advantage over female athletes, says major review

• UK Sport published guidance on transgender inclusion in domestic competition
• Documents state trans women retain advantages competing in female sport
• Guidance stresses the need to encourage everyone to participate in sport
• But highlights the challenge of balancing fairness and safety with inclusion
• It recommends individual sports  find 'creative ways' to ensure no one is left out

Transgender athletes have an unfair advantage in female sports and a new 'universal' category should be introduced for them, a major review has suggested. 

The report, from the Sports Councils Equality Group, concluded that trans women have an advantage in some sports, even when testosterone levels have been reduced. 

To protect female sport while also ensuring transgender participation, the report suggested that new 'universal' or 'open' categories are introduced for trans athletes.

Currently, under International Olympic Committee guidelines, transgender athletes can compete in elite sport as a woman, provided their testosterone levels are below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months before their first competition.

However, the new review from the Sports Councils Equality Group, which includes UK Sport, Sport England, Sport Wales, Sport Scotland and Sport Northern Ireland, ruled that testosterone suppression does not take away the physical advantages of trans women in female sport.

Because of this, it said that it isn't possible  to guarantee safety and competitive fairness in some sports.

Interesting stuff.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

But I also don't beieve that transgenders should automatically be banned from participating in sports.  With the hormonal requirements to transition, it also wouldn't be fair for these athletes to compete in the male sports for the exact same reasons.  It is finding that balance of fairness without discriminating.  It seems like the IOC is taking a reasonable approach to deal with this issue.

This seems like a good step forward in leveling the playing field.  If that standard is not adequate then it should be reviewed and reevaluated. If there are women who fall within the testosterone level as the trans athletes, then they should get their chance to compete.  Let science lead the way rather than prejudice.

I agree with most of what you say.

I think part of the problem is that, on the issue of biologically male athletes competing against biologically female athletes, the public conversation is materially hindered by threatened or actualized accusations of prejudice, bigotry, "transphobia," and so on.  

There are plenty of reasoned and principled and good faith grounds to be concerned about this issue, but if expressing those concerns runs the risk of your reputation being destroyed, then that's a problem.

See, e.g., here:

Quote

EXCLUSIVE: 'It's impossible to beat her': Despondent female rival says swimming against trans Lia Thomas is 'intimidating' and 'discouraging' after teammates spoke out and said 'everyone knows it's wrong'

• A third female swimmer has spoke out against UPenn transgender swimmer Lia Thomas after she shattered national records earlier this month
• The female swimmer from Niagara University who wishes to remain anonymous and competed against Thomas at the Zippy Invitational 
• 'Swimming against Lia...I knew deep down it was going to be impossible for me to swim as fast as her,' the discouraged senior from Niagara University admitted
• 'It’s hard working your whole life at a sport.... and knowing you won’t ever be on the same physical level as them,' the female swimmer said
• Thomas broke two national records when she competed in the female races at the Zippy Invitational- one record was less than a minute off the world-record 
• Two of Thomas' female UPenn teammates have also anonymously spoken out to express their frustrations with having a transgender teammate 

A third female swimmer has spoken out to voice her frustrations of competing against UPenn transgender swimmer Lia Thomas saying that it is 'impossible' to beat her.

Thomas broke two national records when she competed in the female races at the Zippy Invitational earlier this month. She previously competed on the UPenn men's swim team for three years before transitioning and undergoing hormone treatments for nearly two and a half years.  

A female swimmer from Niagara University who wishes to remain anonymous and competed against Thomas at the Zippy Invitational told DailyMail.com of the intimidation and discouragement she felt racing the transgender athlete.  
...
In the week after the Zippy Invitational, two of Thomas' female UPenn teammates anonymously spoke out about their frustrations of having a transgender teammate. 

The first anonymous female swimmer from UPenn told sports website OutKick that she and most of her female teammates are upset because their coach, Mike Schnur, is allowing a transgender athlete to take a woman's spot because he 'just really likes winning.' 

She would only speak to OutKick on the condition of anonymity because she's afraid that making comments about a trans athlete will hurt her chances of getting a job after she graduates. 

'Pretty much everyone individually has spoken to our coaches about not liking this,' the anonymous Ivy League athlete told Outkick in their interview, published Thursday. 'Our coach just really likes winning. He's like most coaches. I think secretly everyone just knows it's the wrong thing to do.'

"She would only speak to OutKick on the condition of anonymity because she's afraid that making comments about a trans athlete will hurt her chances of getting a job after she graduates."

Oi.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 7, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

14 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Second , please tell me what actions are being forced on you that are egregious and hurt you or anyone other than it makes you feel uncomfortable.  Transgender women in prisons have hurt no one and actually are safer than if they stayed in men's prisons.  You are a lawyer.  Go review the murder rate of transgender women.  But maybe you are arguing that it would be better to leave a transgender woman in a men's prison because it is more likely they will be abused or killed.

(Emphasis added.)

I've reported you to the mods.  We need to be able to have civil discussions about controversial topics.  What you said here is way beyond the pale.  Publicly accusing me "arguing" that incarcerating trans women with men would be "better" because "it is more likely they will be abused or killed" is disgusting an abhorrent.  I have said nothing close to this.  I reject it outright.  Nobody deserves extralegal mistreatment in prison.

I hope the mods take severe action against you.  Again, we need to be able to have conversations without resorting to ugly, poisonous accusations such as yours.

-Smac

Edited January 7, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Good grief. I now think I've been off on my understanding this whole time. And I'm fearful of taking this thread further from its intent. But what does "The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient" even mean?

Some medications affect biological males differently than biological females.  Hence the reference to "sex (not gender)."  "Gender" is being referenced in a purely non-medical, non-biological sense.

20 hours ago, Vanguard said:

How can a medication depend on gender?

Broadly speaking, it can't.  A biological male who "identifies" as being within the "female" gender is ostensibly referencing purely social conventions.

But then, the "trans women are women" mantra seems to relegate womanhood to a purely social construct, with no connection whatsoever to biology.

20 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I'm using the 2nd definition of gender as "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" from Merriam Webster.

Look at the example given: "the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender)...").

See also this article: Drugs can affect men and women differently

Quote

Differences between men and women prompted the FDA last year to recommend that each take different dosages of this country's most popular sleep drug, Ambien.  The FDA cut the suggested dose for women in half after new studies showed that women were more likely to be left the next morning with levels of the drug in their bodies that could impair driving an automobile.  That's because women metabolize Ambien differently, reaching maximum blood levels 45 percent higher than those of men.  Despite the fact that many other drugs are also metabolized differently by men and women, Ambien is the only drug on the market for which the FDA has different suggested doses based on sex. 

So if Lia Thomas went to see a doctor, and if the doctor was planning to prescribe Ambien, the doctor would need to look at her sex (biological male) as opposed to her "gender" (trans woman).

This is a very new distinction, and it still has not fully taken hold, so it's sort of understandable that there is some confusion about it.

20 hours ago, Vanguard said:

As a side note, I do not have an issue with your style of commentary. You mostly ask questions that need to be answered. I too am confused by most of the answers given. : ( 

Thanks.  It can be difficult to have these conversations.  Nobody likes to be publicly accused of wanting to see trans women murdered in prison, and yet our very own Kim Pearson did just that to me earlier in this very thread.  And he's supposedly a member of the Church.  Not cool.

We need to be able to have conversations about serious and controversial topics without resorting to this sort of ugly invective.  It's unfair, inaccurate, unnecessary and unhelpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some medications affect biological males differently than biological females.  Hence the reference to "sex (not gender)."  "Gender" is being referenced in a purely non-medical, non-biological sense.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

A biological male who "identifies" as being within the "female" gender is ostensibly referencing purely social conventions.

I understand medications can affect the two sexes differently. If gender is considered simply a social convention then there was no need to even mention gender in the same sentence without avoiding unnecessary confusion.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

So if Lia Thomas went to see a doctor, and if the doctor was planning to prescribe Ambien, the doctor would need to look at her sex (biological male) as opposed to her "gender" (trans woman).

This is a very new distinction, and it still has not fully taken hold, so it's sort of understandable that there is some confusion about it.

So does our language intend a different meaning when we use the terms 'male' (sex) and 'man' (gender)? Or are these terms interchangeable? By your example, you don't seem to think they are.

Moreover, isn't the movement all about declaring there are innumerable genders available and not simply just two? Does it always have to be 'trans-woman/man'?

 

NOTE: Is there an easier way to format these responses so as to effectively show all past comments of each poster so that the reader can readily see the entire progression of the exchange? Can anyone answer that?

Edited January 8, 2022 by Vanguard

[carbon dioxide]

On 1/6/2022 at 8:30 PM, kimpearson said:

But maybe you are arguing that it would be better to leave a transgender woman in a men's prison because it is more likely they will be abused or killed.

There are ways to protect trans "women" in a male prison.  Prisons often house at risk prisoners separate from the general population.  Why offend women prisoners in a woman prison with a trans "woman" unless one perhaps want to make the women uncomfortable in those prisons.