NYT Article: What people will and won't say on LGBTQ+ Issues

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

While that's true, we don't feel a need to create basketball leagues for short people. There simply must be more to it than trying to set up leagues for disadvantaged athletes.

Well, to be clear, basketball leagues for short people have been done, though it's not common. But if that's the analogy we're going with, I'll ask you this. This league limited it's players to those 6'4" and under. If someone who was 6'8" wanted to play because they truly felt like they were a short person in a tall person's body, would it be fair to exclude them?

Basketball League On a Small Scale

Short students can now play in a league of their own

But you're right. At the competitive level, we do simply accept that short people aren't going to be playing competitive basketball (with very rare exceptions).

So do we just need to likewise simply accept that the fair thing to do is to have biological males and females compete together with no sexist segregation, and simply accept that biological women won't be competing in competitive sports?

Edited April 20, 2022 by cinepro

[Analytics]

7 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Is being short really comparable to being a woman?  Is a woman no different than a disadvantaged man? 

Answering the question as to why we have female sports leagues, @cinepro said, "The obvious answer (to me) is that we do it because girls and women of all ages are generally slower and weaker than boys and men." 

My point is that I strenuously disagree with that. A woman is not merely a disadvantaged man who needs to be in a league with "generally slower and weaker" competition so that it's fair. My point is about why female sport leagues exist.

My point is that for swimmers, girl swimming isn't a sport for "female bodied athletes." Rather, it is a sport for people who self-identify as girls.

I also agree that for elite athletes, the fairness issue matters.

I believe that the Board of Directors of USA Swimming understands this sport, its values, and its athletes better than right-wing pundits and the Utah state legislature. I agree with their two-tiered system of inclusion and equality that has different rules depending upon whether the athlete in question is competing at an elite level.

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

Well, to be clear, basketball leagues for short people have been done, though it's not common. But if that's the analogy we're going with, I'll ask you this. This league limited it's players to those 6'4" and under. If someone who was 6'8" wanted to play because they truly felt like they were a short person in a tall person's body, would it be fair to exclude them?

It depends on the individual in question. When I played basketball in middle school gym class, captains of 16 teams would pick their teams from a pool of 80 students, and the last one picked also happened to be the tallest. He was picked last because he was slow, uncoordinated, and uninterested, and having him on your team was a huge liability, despite his height.

So if somebody who was 6'8" tall wanted to play in a league for short people and his skill set on average put him exactly on par with the shorter people in the league, letting him play on the team would be exceedingly fair.

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

So do we just need to likewise simply accept that the fair thing to do is to have biological males and females compete together with no sexist segregation, and simply accept that biological women won't be competing in competitive sports?

No. My point is that USA Swimming is being quite reasonable and consistent when for non-elite athletes, they allow "all athletes to experience the sport of swimming in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity and expression." That's what it's about--not your concept of what's "fair."

Edited April 20, 2022 by Analytics

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

So if somebody who was 6'8" tall wanted to play in a league for short people and his skill set on average put him exactly on par with the shorter people in the league, letting him play on the team would be exceedingly fair.

 

That's simply making that argument that inherent physical differences, including those based on biological sex, should not be taken into account, and instead we should have skill-based leagues. Which is fine, but it's the absolute end of competitive female sport leagues.

You might say that this only applies to elite competition, but you're forgetting how this would actually work. All sports leagues with any competitive element have a finite number of spots on the roster, including those for schools. Without sex-segregated teams, even the lower divisions (Frosh/JV) teams will be almost entirely boys. There may be a few especially gifted girls who make it to the lower teams, but the vast majority will be boys.

And that raises the problem of how these girls will even develop their talents to reach that level.

I'm also mystified how the US Swimming policy will actually work. Are you suggesting that trans-women will be able to compete with natal women at lower non-elite levels, but if one of them turns out to be really, really good, US Swimming will have the gumption to say "Sorry, but you're good enough that we're going to stop allowing you to swim in the girls' races..."? I can't wait to see how that goes over.

[Analytics]

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

That's simply making that argument that inherent physical differences, including those based on biological sex, should not be taken into account, and instead we should have skill-based leagues. Which is fine, but it's the absolute end of competitive female sport leagues.

I wasn't arguing that physical differences should not be taken into account. I was answering your question about whether it would be fair for a tall person to enter a league full of short people. All I said is that it would be fair if in aggregate, the tall person had attributes and skills that were comparable to the rest of the people in the league.

Even though you can't see it, this proves my point. Having female sports leagues isn't driven by fairness. If it was, you'd have no problem with boys competing with girls provided the specific boys in question didn't have an unfair competitive advantage.

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

You might say that this only applies to elite competition, but you're forgetting how this would actually work. All sports leagues with any competitive element have a finite number of spots on the roster, including those for schools. Without sex-segregated teams, even the lower divisions (Frosh/JV) teams will be almost entirely boys.

Have you forgotten what we're talking about? We are talking about whether the two transgender girls in the entire state of Utah, who are welcomed by their coaches, teammates, and leagues, should be legally allowed to play, or whether the state legislature needs to save girls sports by making it illegal for them to stay on their teams.

The actual issue is about very, very, few people here. 

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm also mystified how the US Swimming policy will actually work. Are you suggesting that trans-women will be able to compete with natal women at lower non-elite levels, but if one of them turns out to be really, really good, US Swimming will have the gumption to say "Sorry, but you're good enough that we're going to stop allowing you to swim in the girls' races..."? I can't wait to see how that goes over.

If you really wanted to know how it will work, you'd spend a minute or two studying it. If a transgender girl wants to swim, she knows going into it that if she gets to an elite level, she'll need to provide evidence that "her concentration of testosterone in serum has been less than 5 nmol/L for a continuous period of 36 months," and will need to have a panel of three doctors evaluate whether "prior physical development of the athlete as a male, as mitigated by any medical intervention," gives her a competitive advantage over her cisgender female competitors.

She knows that going in. Is the policy fair? In a sense yes, and in a sense no. But all athletics is like that.

[Amulek]

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

We are talking about whether the two transgender girls in the entire state of Utah, who are welcomed by their coaches, teammates, and leagues, should be legally allowed to play, or whether the state legislature needs to save girls sports by making it illegal for them to stay on their teams.

Well, that's certainly one way of framing the issue. A more accurate approach might be to present it like this instead:

In cases of conflict between the goals of the identity movement and sports’ traditional goals for girls’ and women’s sport, what should our priority be: (1) equal opportunity in sport for girls and women, or (2) the ability of each individual to participate in sports on their own terms?

Maybe how one answers that question differs based on the level of competition. And maybe different people would draw different lines or have different beliefs about how that ought to work or what ought to be given priority. It seems like reasonable minds might very well differ on such a matter.

Now, if only there were some sort of democratic system whereby people could go about enacting their decisions on these sorts of things. Oh wait...

 

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The actual issue is about very, very, few people here. 

I'm pretty sure we've covered this already but in competitive sports there are very, very few spots on the podium - usually no more than three. So it only takes a few male bodied athletes to entirely sweep the competition.

Now, if you believe it's good enough for girls to merely be given the opportunity to participate in development sport at some point, then maybe that doesn't bother you. For some, however, that isn't good enough. Instead, they believe it's important for girls to be given the opportunity to actually be competitive for the win - that we see them in championships and on the podium.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

We are talking about whether the two transgender girls in the entire state of Utah, who are welcomed by their coaches, teammates, and leagues, should be legally allowed to play, or whether the state legislature needs to save girls sports by making it illegal for them to stay on their teams.

The actual issue is about very, very, few people here. 

And yet the issue is still a question of law.  By your reasoning, nothing should have been done when Rosa Parks refused to change seats on the bus.  She was only one person "in the entire state," after all.

This started out as a social experiment, then a social issue, and has now evolved into a legal issue.  And it's going to continue to evolve and get more questions and concerns about the legalities about it.  More lawsuits.  More public attention.

I suspect some folks were preferring a "camel's nose in the tent," "let's be subtle about this until it has enough momentum that it can't be stopped" kind of approach.  Instead, some state legislators are not waiting for further controversies and acrimony.  And to the chagrin of some, some state legislators are passing laws to slow and/or reverse the trend of biological males competing in women's sports.  And this, we are told, is a bad thing.

The lawsuits are on their way.  In the end, I think the courts - perhaps even SCOTUS - will need to address the elephant in the room: "What is a woman?"  It will be an awkward moment for Ketanji Brown Jackson, who - to her discredit - suggested that only biologists can answer this question.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2022 by smac97

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Well, that's certainly one way of framing the issue. A more accurate approach might be to present it like this instead:

In cases of conflict between the goals of the identity movement and sports’ traditional goals for girls’ and women’s sport, what should our priority be: (1) equal opportunity in sport for girls and women, or (2) the ability of each individual to participate in sports on their own terms?

Maybe how one answers that question differs based on the level of competition. And maybe different people would draw different lines or have different beliefs about how that ought to work or what ought to be given priority. It seems like reasonable minds might very well differ on such a matter.

I basically agree with this.

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Now, if only there were some sort of democratic system whereby people could go about enacting their decisions on these sorts of things. Oh wait...

A free-market, libertarian solution for such things would be quite nice. If USA Swimming wants to create a balance between inclusion and fairness that in their opinion meets the needs of their organization, let them. If somebody else has different values, let them join a different league or create one of their own.

What I object to is pundits and politicians using this as a wedge issue to drum of fear and hatred for their own political agendas, and then politicians using the heavy hand of government to impose their will on situations they don't understand. 

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I'm pretty sure we've covered this already but in competitive sports there are very, very few spots on the podium - usually no more than three. So it only takes a few male bodied athletes to entirely sweep the competition.

Sure. I happen to think that there are very, very, few transgender athletes to begin with, and only a small subset of them will be competing for those spots on the podium. I also believe that  USA Swimming's response to this is a balanced and reasonable approach, and I also believe that they are the ones who should make the decision--not state legislatures. 

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Now, if you believe it's good enough for girls to merely be given the opportunity to participate in development sport at some point, then maybe that doesn't bother you. For some, however, that isn't good enough. Instead, they believe it's important for girls to be given the opportunity to actually be competitive for the win - that we see them in championships and on the podium.

There are very few examples of transgender girls who have displaced other girls on the podium, and I don't believe there is a trend of this growing to the point where cisgender girls taking all the top spots is an exception rather than the norm. Because of that, I really don't think there is a huge problem here, although if you happen to be the person who was displaced, I acknowledge that is small comfort.

[Analytics]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet the issue is still a question of law.  By your reasoning, nothing should have been done when Rosa Parks refused to change seats on the bus.  She was only one person "in the entire state," after all.

That wasn't my reasoning at all, and the Rosa Parks issue isn't the least bit comparable. 

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This started out as a social experiment, then a social issue, and has now evolved into a legal issue. 

It evolved into a legal issue when the Republican state legislatures thought this would be a useful wedge issue and created possibly-illegal laws that weren't actually needed. If they would have followed the advice of the Deseret News's editorial board and let Governor Cox's veto stand, it wouldn't be a legal issue anymore.

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect some folks were preferring a "camel's nose in the tent," "let's be subtle about this until it has enough momentum that it can't be stopped" kind of approach.

That's what the fearmongers want people to imagine. The truth is there aren't legions of transgender girls who want to completely take over girls sports. There is no camel.

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  Instead, some state legislators are not waiting for further controversies and acrimony.  And to the chagrin of some, some state legislators are passing laws to slow and/or reverse the trend of biological males competing in women's sports.  And this, we are told, is a bad thing.

Yes, whenever the government uses its heavy hand to deal with fake problems, it is a bad thing.

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The lawsuits are on their way.  In the end, I think the courts - perhaps even SCOTUS - will need to address the elephant in the room: "What is a woman?"  It will be an awkward moment for Ketanji Brown Jackson, who - to her discredit - suggested that only biologists can answer this question.  

Actually, it will be a moment that will vindicate her, because "what is a woman" is a complicated biological question. A woman is an adult human female, sure. But what is a female? Is that defined by your anatomy? By your genetics? By your hormone levels? By what your birth certificate says? Those things are typically in alignment, but not always. If a certain legal right is given to "women," how do you tell if somebody who is sexually ambiguous is female-enough to be entitled to the benefit? 

As an example, consider Emily Quinn. She has balls and she has XY chromosomes. So is Emily really a man? Before you answer, note she also has a female birth certificate and a vagina.

If there was a government benefit offered to women and whether Emily is entitled to that benefit made it to the Supreme Court, would it be unreasonable to call in some biologists as expert witnesses to address the issue of what a woman actually is? Of course not.

While people who get their news from Fox News think that the question "what is a woman?" is an easy question, people who get their news from NPR know it's actually a difficult question. The question of which group is more educated is obvious.

Here is an NPR transcript from an interview with Emily Quinn.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/852199410

If you prefer, here is her Ted Talk:

 

 

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

I wasn't arguing that physical differences should not be taken into account. I was answering your question about whether it would be fair for a tall person to enter a league full of short people. All I said is that it would be fair if in aggregate, the tall person had attributes and skills that were comparable to the rest of the people in the league.

Even though you can't see it, this proves my point. Having female sports leagues isn't driven by fairness. If it was, you'd have no problem with boys competing with girls provided the specific boys in question didn't have an unfair competitive advantage.

Both of those paragraphs argue for abolishing women-specific leagues and instead having everyone compete (and placed on teams) based on individual merit. That is the most fair to each individual person, even if it ends up destroying women's sports (and hurting women) in general.

I prefer the solution that is most fair to women in general, even if it is unfair to some individuals. I guess society is going to have to figure out which way we want it, since we can't have it both ways.

 

Quote

A free-market, libertarian solution for such things would be quite nice. If USA Swimming wants to create a balance between inclusion and fairness that in their opinion meets the needs of their organization, let them. If somebody else has different values, let them join a different league or create one of their own.

That sounds great, but will it even be legal to create leagues that separate people based on their natal biology, regardless of how they feel or identify?

Edited April 21, 2022 by cinepro

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

A free-market, libertarian solution for such things would be quite nice. If USA Swimming wants to create a balance between inclusion and fairness that in their opinion meets the needs of their organization, let them. If somebody else has different values, let them join a different league or create one of their own.

Well, isn't that exactly what happened in Utah? USA Swimming has got their rules and the state high schools have got their own, so what's your beef?

 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What I object to is pundits and politicians using this as a wedge issue to drum of fear and hatred for their own political agendas, and then politicians using the heavy hand of government to impose their will on situations they don't understand. 

So anyone who disagrees with the policy set by USA Swimming doesn't really understand the situation?

Hubris much?

 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I happen to think that there are very, very, few transgender athletes to begin with, and only a small subset of them will be competing for those spots on the podium.

Based on what evidence? Not about the number of athletes - about them being unsuccessful?

In the Utah case you mentioned previously, the girl at 13 was already in the top three in the state in two different events. What makes you think she is going to get worse over time as she progresses through puberty and potentially decides to go off her hormone regimen? It seems obvious to me that, if that should happen, she would absolutely dominate at meets throughout her high school career. 

 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I also believe that  USA Swimming's response to this is a balanced and reasonable approach, and I also believe that they are the ones who should make the decision--not state legislatures. 

The way I see it, there are a finite number of categories for policy options here:

1. Keeping girls’ and/or women’s sport only for females.
2. Keeping the two categories but allowing males to compete in girls’ and women’s events (a) where they identify as girls and women, and/or (b) because they want the opportunity for some other reason (e.g., they are swimmers and their high school has a girls’ but not a boys’ swim team).
3. Keeping the two categories but allowing males to compete in girls’ and women’s events only if they identify as such and they transition their testosterone levels to within the female range.
4. Erasing the categories completely – no divisions by “male” and “female” however these are defined – and featuring only “open” sports and events where everyone competes together, or else in sports and events based on different classifications like height or weight.

USA Swimming's response seems to be #2 for minors and then #3 for elite competition.

Personally, I prefer something closer to #3 for high school on up. If trans-women in high school haven't been on hormone therapy throughout puberty then they shouldn't be eligible for competition.

However, if people in Utah want something more like Option #1 then that's their business. If you don't like it, you can either just stick with your club team (or whatever that's called in swimming) or move to a different state.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Both of those paragraphs argue for abolishing women-specific leagues and instead having everyone compete (and placed on teams) based on individual merit. That is the most fair to each individual person, even if it ends up destroying women's sports (and hurting women) in general.

Not to mention the fact that such a system, even if desired, is completely untenable in practice. Maybe someday when we reach Gattaca levels of human gene selection and have nano-technology capable of determining individual performance evaluations, but even then it doesn't seem especially feasible - especially for youth sports where there is so much fluctuation in ability over time.

 

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Both of those paragraphs argue for abolishing women-specific leagues and instead having everyone compete (and placed on teams) based on individual merit.

If that's what you think, you misunderstood my point. You asked me if it would be "fair" for a tall person to join a hypothetical short-person league. I said whether or not it would be fair would depend upon the all of the physical attributes the hypothetical tall person has--not just their height. I then explained why.

I wasn't arguing for abolishing women-specific leagues. I was proving that "fairness" really isn't what's driving this.

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

That is the most fair to each individual person, even if it ends up destroying women's sports (and hurting women) in general.

According to the Deseret News yesterday, "Cox’s letter noted that transgender youths have a substantially higher rates of suicide ideation and attempts." If a transgender girl thinks wanting to swim would destroy women's sports and hurt women in general, it wouldn't be surprising that she might be suicidal.

The article also says that while 51% of men surveyed strongly support the law, only 37% of women do. And of course the younger you are and the more educated you are, the less likely you are to support it. The students at several Utah high schools held well-attended protests against the law.

How many Utah residents actually support transgender girls sports ban? - Deseret New

Edited April 21, 2022 by Analytics

[Stormin' Mormon]

On a side note, I get annoyed when laws like these are described as a transgender ban. No one is being banned. No one is being excluded. Male-bodied athletes compete against other male-bodied athletes, and female-bodied athletes compete against other female-bodied athletes. The fact that one is trans is irrelevant to these laws. If a man is driving a female body, he competes with other female bodies. If a woman is driving a man's body, she competes against other men. No one is told to go home.

Is framing the issue as a "ban" any less disingenuous than conservative politicians painting the issue as an epidemic of tragic proportions? Is there any less stoking of fear in talk of "bans" than there is in talk of the total destruction of women's sports?

It's a complex, sensitive, nuanced issue and politicians on both sides of the aisle have stirred the pot for their own professional gain. 

 

[Analytics]

36 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

On a side note, I get annoyed when laws like these are described as a transgender ban. No one is being banned. No one is being excluded. Male-bodied athletes compete against other male-bodied athletes, and female-bodied athletes compete against other female-bodied athletes. The fact that one is trans is irrelevant to these laws. If a man is driving a female body, he competes with other female bodies. If a woman is driving a man's body, she competes against other men. No one is told to go home.

Is framing the issue as a "ban" any less disingenuous than conservative politicians painting the issue as an epidemic of tragic proportions? Is there any less stoking of fear in talk of "bans" than there is in talk of the total destruction of women's sports?

It's a complex, sensitive, nuanced issue and politicians on both sides of the aisle have stirred the pot for their own professional gain. 

 

Did you watch the Ted video above above about how we think about biological sex is wrong?

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet the issue is still a question of law.  By your reasoning, nothing should have been done when Rosa Parks refused to change seats on the bus.  She was only one person "in the entire state," after all.

This is a horrible comparison. There are currently relatively few transgender athletes to be impacted and everyone is figuring out what to do. The bus laws Rosa Parks protested impacted thousands of people every day in an obvious and direct way. One person standing up to them does not mean those laws were only impacting one person. It was pervasive and obvious and deliberately unfair.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

And yet the issue is still a question of law.  By your reasoning, nothing should have been done when Rosa Parks refused to change seats on the bus.  She was only one person "in the entire state," after all.

This is a horrible comparison.

I think it works.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

There are currently relatively few transgender athletes to be impacted and everyone is figuring out what to do.

I don't think that matters.  There are all sorts of statutes that, in practice, only have an impact on a limited number of people.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The bus laws Rosa Parks protested impacted thousands of people every day in an obvious and direct way.

I think there are, or will be, thousands of girls and women impacted by these laws.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Did you watch the Ted video above above about how we think about biological sex is wrong?

The existence of intersex people does not invalidate the existence of biological men and women.

I mean, she literally says:
 

Quote

And if you're thinking that I'm the exception, an anomaly, an outlier: intersex people represent around two percent of the population.

Uh, what does she think the definitions of "exception", "anomaly" and "outlier" are?

But we're right back where we started.

Quote

And the truth is that nobody actually fits in a box, because they don't exist. This binary, this false male-female facade is something we constructed, we built ourselves.

If she is correct, then dividing people into sports leagues based on the outdated notions of binary genitalia for "boys" and "girls" is not just futile, it is wrong. No, it's not just wrong, these distinctions don't even exist. So we should stop doing it. There's no reason to continue doing it. End separate sports leagues for "boys" and "girls", "men" and "women", immediately.

Edited April 22, 2022 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

End separate sports leagues for "boys" and "girls", "men" and "women", immediately.

Finally I can pursue my dreams in the sport of synchronized swimming.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Did you watch the Ted video above above about how we think about biological sex is wrong?

No, but I read the transcript you provided where she repeats the dubious statistic about intersex people making up about 2% of the population (e.g., analogous to the frequency of redheads). 

This statistic comes from the writings of Anne Fausto-Sterling, professor of biology and gender studies at Brown University. Back in 2000 she wrote a book and published a review article where she examined any deviation from the Platonic ideal of dimorphic sex and concluded that the frequency could be as high as 2% (note: the 2% figure here is a rounded estimate which is why you'll more commonly see her actual 1.7% number referenced instead). 

This statistic, however, is highly misleading, for "[m]any reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling's estimate of 1.7%."

Now look, I recognize that there are indeed rare conditions where people don't neatly fit into the boxes we commonly use when talking about sex. But maybe you should tap the brakes on all of that 'uneducated,' 'Fox News watching' business, because I've got to be honest: if the way somebody thinks about a subject happens to be correct 99.982% of the time then, IMHO, that kind of seems like a fairly serviceable generalization for them to be using for the most part. 

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Amulek

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think [the Rosa Parks analogy] works.

It doesn't work at all. Cinepro asserted that if we let people play the sports they want to play on the teams that align with their identities, girls teams at every level "will be almost entirely boys." I was disputing that point. When I said "The actual issue is about very, very, few people here," I was saying that mathematically cinepro is wrong--if we let the two transgender athletes in Utah swim, they simply aren't going to take every spot on every team of every sport at every level on every school in the state. Even if the number of transgender athletes doubled to four, that wouldn't happen.

That has nothing to do with Rosa Parks. 

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It doesn't work at all. Cinepro asserted that if we let people play the sports they want to play on the teams that align with their identities, girls teams at every level "will be almost entirely boys." I was disputing that point. When I said "The actual issue is about very, very, few people here," I was saying that mathematically cinepro is wrong--if we let the two transgender athletes in Utah swim, they simply aren't going to take every spot on every team of every sport at every level on every school in the state. Even if the number of transgender athletes doubled to four, that wouldn't happen.

That has nothing to do with Rosa Parks. 

I don't think about this in terms of numbers. As we saw recently, a transgender woman can change the competitive outcome for several other women, or even just one other woman. My opinion is that gender identity for sports should be treated similarly to other divisions such as weight in combat sports and age divisions generally; transgender seems to involve a mix of intellectual/mental and developmental/physical differences.

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, Amulek said:

No, but I read the transcript you provided where she repeats the dubious statistic about intersex people making up about 2% of the population (e.g., analogous to the frequency of redheads). 

Thank you for reading it.

11 hours ago, Amulek said:

This statistic comes from the writings of Anne Fausto-Sterling, professor of biology and gender studies at Brown University. Back in 2000 she wrote a book and published a review article where she examined any deviation from the Platonic ideal of dimorphic sex and concluded that the frequency could be as high as 2% (note: the 2% figure here is a rounded estimate which is why you'll more commonly see her actual 1.7% number referenced instead). 

This statistic, however, is highly misleading, for "[m]any reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling's estimate of 1.7%."

Interesting. It reminds me of "The Good Fight" on Paramount+. Episode 6 of Season 4 is called "The Gang Offends Everyone." It features a young woman who is suing because she didn't make the U.S. Olympic team due to being edged out by a transgender woman. The episode ends up having an ironic ending: in the show, they come up with an "objective" standard for delimiting who may swim on the women team. According to this standard, the cisgender woman who was suing ends up being disqualified because although she is a woman by any objective standard, she happens to naturally have the testosterone levels of a man. 

11 hours ago, Amulek said:

Now look, I recognize that there are indeed rare conditions where people don't neatly fit into the boxes we commonly use when talking about sex. But maybe you should tap the brakes on all of that 'uneducated,' 'Fox News watching' business, because I've got to be honest: if the way somebody thinks about a subject happens to be correct 99.982% of the time then, IMHO, that kind of seems like a fairly serviceable generalization for them to be using for the most part. 

Yes, talking about males and females is "a fairly serviceable generalization" for the most part. I totally agree with you there.

Cases that make it to the Supreme Court often have to do with complex issues--with where you draw the line in things that are complex or where multiple conflicting values need to somehow be balanced. In that context, a senator (disingenuously) asked a nominee to the Supreme Court to define "woman." Ketanji Brown Jackson made an intelligent, honest, good-faith answer to this gotcha question that recognizes what you do--not everybody neatly fits into the boxes we commonly use when talking about sex, and the actual biological determinants of sex are subtle, complex, and don't have bright lines. In the context of hypothetical Supreme Court cases that could hinge on the definition of "woman," relying on the opinion of expert witness biologists would be the right thing to do. Jackson understanding the complexity of this speaks highly about the breath of her knowledge and her wisdom.

But rather than castigate senator Marsha Blackburn for asking such a bad-faith, stupid question, a certain class of people mock Jackson for her answer. @smac97 posted a bunch of memes mocking Judge Jackson. My comments about "uneducated" and "Fox News Watching" was directed towards that inanity--not to people who make "fairly serviceable generalizations" when it is appropriate to do so.

[Analytics]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't think about this in terms of numbers. As we saw recently, a transgender woman can change the competitive outcome for several other women, or even just one other woman. My opinion is that gender identity for sports should be treated similarly to other divisions such as weight in combat sports and age divisions generally; transgender seems to involve a mix of intellectual/mental and developmental/physical differences.

You have a reasonable position here, and your argument is much stronger than the argument that if we let a transgender girl compete, the girls teams "will be almost entirely boys" at every level.

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

The existence of intersex people does not invalidate the existence of biological men and women.

I mean, she literally says:
 

Uh, what does she think the definitions of "exception", "anomaly" and "outlier" are?

To me, those terms refer to things that don't fit on the distribution. Her point is that intersex people do fit on the distribution. 

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

If she is correct, then dividing people into sports leagues based on the outdated notions of binary genitalia for "boys" and "girls" is not just futile, it is wrong. No, it's not just wrong, these distinctions don't even exist. So we should stop doing it. There's no reason to continue doing it. End separate sports leagues for "boys" and "girls", "men" and "women", immediately.

I don't think the morality of sports is dependent on having an naïve view of sex.