UPenn swimmer comes out as trans / switches to women's team after competing on men's team for 3 years and is dominating NCAA

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

By that token, anybody can be a anything they claim to be - you are a "genius" if you say so, regardless of the evidence against it. I can be an American if I say so - even though I am not a citizen. I could be from Atlantis, if I say so.

When a person says they are a "woman" they are using a term of self-description that has a defined meaning for millions of others. How can they be a woman if they do not share that agreed definition of what it means to be a woman? They have simply appropriated the term and stripped it of its agreed meaning, so that it will mean anything they say it means. That is fine if you only wish to use a word differently from how others use it - but they don't, they wish to be included amongst those for whom the word "woman" means something. And it does not mean a person who is biologically male.

You’re really over complicating things.

There are actual trans people in the town where you live. They are a real thing.

Again, I don’t think we should allow people who don’t even acknowledge a transperson’s existence to contribute to the sports conversation. It is akin to someone who thinks certain races are superior to others being allowed to vote on school integration.

Armstronglivs wrote:

A transperson's existence is not being denied. It is the claim they are in women as other women are that is being questioned, in conjunction with the further argument that they are entitled to compete as such. You have given no basis for supporting either claim except the entirely subjective one, that a person is a woman if they say are, regardless of whether they are biologically male. Are you anything that you claim to be - a genius, Napolean reincarnated, Santa Claus? - because you say you are?

Your racial analogy is also entirely inappropriate; no one questions that there are different races and nor is there an argument being made here to discriminate on the basis of race. If you seek to draw an analogy with the debate about transgenderism it would be that a person is entitled to claim they are white, black, Asian etc solely on the basis of how they racially identify. Who accepts that? Yet that is what you are maintaining in respect of gender.

In terms of who should be able to contribute to a discussion about sports I would suggest someone who has maintained that "fairness" is irrelevant - as you do - has thereby disqualified themselves as having any credibility in that conversation.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

You’re really over complicating things.

There are actual trans people in the town where you live. They are a real thing.

Again, I don’t think we should allow people who don’t even acknowledge a transperson’s existence to contribute to the sports conversation. It is akin to someone who thinks certain races are superior to others being allowed to vote on school integration.

A transperson's existence is not being denied. It is the claim they are in women as other women are that is being questioned, in conjunction with the further argument that they are entitled to compete as such. You have given no basis for supporting either claim except the entirely subjective one, that a person is a woman if they say are, regardless of whether they are biologically male. Are you anything that you claim to be - a genius, Napolean reincarnated, Santa Claus? - because you say you are?

Your racial analogy is also entirely inappropriate; no one questions that there are different races and nor is there an argument being made here to discriminate on the basis of race. If you seek to draw an analogy with the debate about transgenderism it would be that a person is entitled to claim they are white, black, Asian etc solely on the basis of how they racially identify. Who accepts that? Yet that is what you are maintaining in respect of gender.

In terms of who should be able to contribute to a discussion about sports I would suggest someone who has maintained that "fairness" is irrelevant - as you do - has thereby disqualified themselves as having any credibility in that conversation.

Tatar... wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A transperson's existence is not being denied. It is the claim they are in women as other women are that is being questioned, in conjunction with the further argument that they are entitled to compete as such. You have given no basis for supporting either claim except the entirely subjective one, that a person is a woman if they say are, regardless of whether they are biologically male. Are you anything that you claim to be - a genius, Napolean reincarnated, Santa Claus? - because you say you are?

Your racial analogy is also entirely inappropriate; no one questions that there are different races and nor is there an argument being made here to discriminate on the basis of race. If you seek to draw an analogy with the debate about transgenderism it would be that a person is entitled to claim they are white, black, Asian etc solely on the basis of how they racially identify. Who accepts that? Yet that is what you are maintaining in respect of gender.

In terms of who should be able to contribute to a discussion about sports I would suggest someone who has maintained that "fairness" is irrelevant - as you do - has thereby disqualified themselves as having any credibility in that conversation.

Quite a few people actually. Barack Obama is black. Some people will say he's mixed and he's entitled to identify as both black and mixed or white and mixed if he really wanted to. The boundaries of who is white change depending on the historical era. There's nothing really biological about race and the same can be said of gender.

If you don't accept them as women then you are 100% denying their existence. We can talk about how trans- and cis- women differ in their experiences of what it's like to be a woman, like we can discuss the similar and different experiences that black and mixed race people can have, but to deny them entirely we'll never progress to that conversation.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A transperson's existence is not being denied. It is the claim they are in women as other women are that is being questioned, in conjunction with the further argument that they are entitled to compete as such. You have given no basis for supporting either claim except the entirely subjective one, that a person is a woman if they say are, regardless of whether they are biologically male. Are you anything that you claim to be - a genius, Napolean reincarnated, Santa Claus? - because you say you are?

Your racial analogy is also entirely inappropriate; no one questions that there are different races and nor is there an argument being made here to discriminate on the basis of race. If you seek to draw an analogy with the debate about transgenderism it would be that a person is entitled to claim they are white, black, Asian etc solely on the basis of how they racially identify. Who accepts that? Yet that is what you are maintaining in respect of gender.

In terms of who should be able to contribute to a discussion about sports I would suggest someone who has maintained that "fairness" is irrelevant - as you do - has thereby disqualified themselves as having any credibility in that conversation.

A person can legally change their gender. You do realize that? In the eyes of the University of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the United States of America, Lia Thomas is a woman. That's a fact.

Talking about Napolean and Santa Claus does not change that fact.

I mention fairness so often because it is nowhere in the definition of discrimination. No one is entitled to be put in a position of winning a race. That's what "fairness" means. The ONLY thing that matters is that people are allowed to compete.

If Lia Thomas is a woman in the eyes of the law, (again, every governmental and educational institution agrees she is a woman.) then she should be a woman when she is swimming in a pool.

If you disagree with anything I have posted, it is because you don't think she is a woman. According to UPenn and the US Government, you would be incorrect.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Tatar... wrote:

Quite a few people actually. Barack Obama is black. Some people will say he's mixed and he's entitled to identify as both black and mixed or white and mixed if he really wanted to. The boundaries of who is white change depending on the historical era. There's nothing really biological about race and the same can be said of gender.

If you don't accept them as women then you are 100% denying their existence. We can talk about how trans- and cis- women differ in their experiences of what it's like to be a woman, like we can discuss the similar and different experiences that black and mixed race people can have, but to deny them entirely we'll never progress to that conversation.

There is "nothing really biological" about race? Tell that to the Proud Boys - or the Confederacy. Or maybe Sidney Poitier, Louis Armstrong, or Michael Jordan. That there are people of "mixed race" - as you say Obama is (I don't think he does) - only confirms that racial distinctions do in fact exist. You cannot have "mixed race" if there are no races. There have been cases recently that have resulted in an angry reaction from the black community when a white person in academia has claimed to be a POC. If race still matters anywhere, it matters in the US; your society was built around it. And in many respects, it still is.

Transgender are not having their existence denied - they are people - but that does not mean that they are women as other women are. They are trans women. The argument which I would make - and others do - is that their male biological characteristics mean they have an advantage in sports that other women cannot have, by virtue of those male features. Their participation in the protected category of female competition is what I am opposed to.

lurker wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Transwomen are women. They should be in women’s sports.

Not sure if you you’re being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse. You are surprisingly stuck on the binary woman v not-woman. The situation is not binary, there’s a rainbow. You can’t seem to acknowledge that: perhaps you are the one denying trans persons existence?

In any event, one must consider the purpose of the classification. For general social situations, sure, she’s a woman. For a doctors visit, she’s a trans woman, who is going to be better served with a prostate exam than a mammogram. For an intimate relationship, it’s going to make a difference to potential partners.

For purposes of athletic competition, she’s not biologically female, has clear advantages, and many people including myself think that’s unfair to biological women. As a society, we’re still working out how to include trans persons, while not stomping on the rights of others, in this case, biological women, who are getting treated poorly and told to celebrate it.

Tatar... wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There is "nothing really biological" about race? Tell that to the Proud Boys - or the Confederacy. Or maybe Sidney Poitier, Louis Armstrong, or Michael Jordan. That there are people of "mixed race" - as you say Obama is (I don't think he does) - only confirms that racial distinctions do in fact exist. You cannot have "mixed race" if there are no races. There have been cases recently that have resulted in an angry reaction from the black community when a white person in academia has claimed to be a POC. If race still matters anywhere, it matters in the US; your society was built around it. And in many respects, it still is.

Transgender are not having their existence denied - they are people - but that does not mean that they are women as other women are. They are trans women. The argument which I would make - and others do - is that their male biological characteristics mean they have an advantage in sports that other women cannot have, by virtue of those male features. Their participation in the protected category of female competition is what I am opposed to.

What the Proud Boys think is irrelevant. Just because I've said race doesn't exist doesn't mean racism doesn't. It's a social category not a biological one. Just because something doesn't exist biologically doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. It's why blacks identifying with each other is generally positive, because it's based on shared social experience of prejudice but whites identifying with each other is simply fallacious because there's nothing to tie whites together, biologically or socially.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

lurker wrote:

Not sure if you you’re being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse. You are surprisingly stuck on the binary woman v not-woman. The situation is not binary, there’s a rainbow. You can’t seem to acknowledge that: perhaps you are the one denying trans persons existence?

In any event, one must consider the purpose of the classification. For general social situations, sure, she’s a woman. For a doctors visit, she’s a trans woman, who is going to be better served with a prostate exam than a mammogram. For an intimate relationship, it’s going to make a difference to potential partners.

For purposes of athletic competition, she’s not biologically female, has clear advantages, and many people including myself think that’s unfair to biological women. As a society, we’re still working out how to include trans persons, while not stomping on the rights of others, in this case, biological women, who are getting treated poorly and told to celebrate it.

I didn't create the gender binary in sports. It was already there before I was born. I'm not here to discuss whether or not that should be demolished, I'm just trying to see how Lia Thomas fits into the current structure that we have: Men's and Women's sports.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Tatar... wrote:

What the Proud Boys think is irrelevant. Just because I've said race doesn't exist doesn't mean racism doesn't. It's a social category not a biological one. Just because something doesn't exist biologically doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. It's why blacks identifying with each other is generally positive, because it's based on shared social experience of prejudice but whites identifying with each other is simply fallacious because there's nothing to tie whites together, biologically or socially.

So racism is based on something that doesn't exist? There are no races? You really are entering the realms of the absurd. What do you think hundreds of years of slavery was based on? Were whites enslaved in America? Your further claim that whites have nothing that gives them a shared identity because they don't have the experience of racial prejudice or discrimination is utter nonsense. Families - including white families - have a shared sense of identity, classmates do, people from the same town and ultimately of the same nationality. A shared sense of identity is based on a whole range of experiences and associations and not just race. But race is often part of it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

A person can legally change their gender. You do realize that? In the eyes of the University of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the United States of America, Lia Thomas is a woman. That's a fact.

Talking about Napolean and Santa Claus does not change that fact.

I mention fairness so often because it is nowhere in the definition of discrimination. No one is entitled to be put in a position of winning a race. That's what "fairness" means. The ONLY thing that matters is that people are allowed to compete.

If Lia Thomas is a woman in the eyes of the law, (again, every governmental and educational institution agrees she is a woman.) then she should be a woman when she is swimming in a pool.

If you disagree with anything I have posted, it is because you don't think she is a woman. According to UPenn and the US Government, you would be incorrect.

That she can be a woman in the eyes of the law does not change what she is biologically, which is male. Her gender identity is a legal category; not a fact of biology. It is her biology which makes her identity an issue in sports, because female competition has by definition excluded biological males, for reasons of fairness among others.

Sports are founded on a principle of fairness, which is why unfair advantage and cheating of any kind, including of course doping, is regarded as an affront to that principle. It is also why there are age categories in sports, weight categories, and categories of sex. These are all biological categories. They make it clear that the right to compete is not the beginning and the end of fairness; it is being able to compete where you are not going to be automatically denied the possibility of success because of your age, size or sex. Biological males - as transgender athletes are - competing in the protected female category fails to meet the accepted standards of fairness in sports. If it were not so, there would have not been a female category in which males are denied the right to compete.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Tatar... wrote:

Quite a few people actually. Barack Obama is black. Some people will say he's mixed and he's entitled to identify as both black and mixed or white and mixed if he really wanted to. The boundaries of who is white change depending on the historical era. There's nothing really biological about race and the same can be said of gender.

If you don't accept them as women then you are 100% denying their existence. We can talk about how trans- and cis- women differ in their experiences of what it's like to be a woman, like we can discuss the similar and different experiences that black and mixed race people can have, but to deny them entirely we'll never progress to that conversation.

There is "nothing really biological" about race? Tell that to the Proud Boys - or the Confederacy. Or maybe Sidney Poitier, Louis Armstrong, or Michael Jordan. That there are people of "mixed race" - as you say Obama is (I don't think he does) - only confirms that racial distinctions do in fact exist. You cannot have "mixed race" if there are no races. There have been cases recently that have resulted in an angry reaction from the black community when a white person in academia has claimed to be a POC. If race still matters anywhere, it matters in the US; your society was built around it. And in many respects, it still is.

Transgender are not having their existence denied - they are people - but that does not mean that they are women as other women are. They are trans women. The argument which I would make - and others do - is that their male biological characteristics mean they have an advantage in sports that other women cannot have, by virtue of those male features. Their participation in the protected category of female competition is what I am opposed to.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Tatar... wrote:

What the Proud Boys think is irrelevant. Just because I've said race doesn't exist doesn't mean racism doesn't. It's a social category not a biological one. Just because something doesn't exist biologically doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. It's why blacks identifying with each other is generally positive, because it's based on shared social experience of prejudice but whites identifying with each other is simply fallacious because there's nothing to tie whites together, biologically or socially.

So racism is based on something that doesn't exist? There are no races? You really are entering the realms of the absurd. What do you think hundreds of years of slavery was based on? Were whites enslaved in America? Your further claim that whites have nothing that gives them a shared identity because they don't have the experience of racial prejudice or discrimination is utter nonsense. Families - including white families - have a shared sense of identity, classmates do, people from the same town and ultimately of the same nationality. A shared sense of identity is based on a whole range of experiences and associations and not just race. But race is often part of it.

Tatar... wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So racism is based on something that doesn't exist? There are no races? You really are entering the realms of the absurd. What do you think hundreds of years of slavery was based on? Were whites enslaved in America? Your further claim that whites have nothing that gives them a shared identity because they don't have the experience of racial prejudice or discrimination is utter nonsense. Families - including white families - have a shared sense of identity, classmates do, people from the same town and ultimately of the same nationality. A shared sense of identity is based on a whole range of experiences and associations and not just race. But race is often part of it.

For all your supposedly liberal posts elsewhere I can't believe you don't understand the basics of anti-racism. There are no biological races. Racism is based on an incorrect idea. You are perceived as belonging to a race, you are not biologically part of one. It's our perceived differences that leads to racism. Black people were enslaved because of their perceived inferiority not based in reality. That experience has lead to a social category that need not have existed but nonetheless does.

None of the things you mentioned - schools, neighborhoods, sports teams are based on race at all, they are based on a community. You can go to school with a black kid and have a connection with him/her. I haven't said white people don't have identities, but to have a 'white identity' is absurd as there's no shared experience of being white. Black identity is different because there clearly is a shared experience there.

Tatar... wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So racism is based on something that doesn't exist? There are no races? You really are entering the realms of the absurd. What do you think hundreds of years of slavery was based on? Were whites enslaved in America? Your further claim that whites have nothing that gives them a shared identity because they don't have the experience of racial prejudice or discrimination is utter nonsense. Families - including white families - have a shared sense of identity, classmates do, people from the same town and ultimately of the same nationality. A shared sense of identity is based on a whole range of experiences and associations and not just race. But race is often part of it.

For all your supposedly liberal posts elsewhere I can't believe you don't understand the basics of anti-racism. There are no biological races. Racism is based on an incorrect idea. You are perceived as belonging to a race, you are not biologically part of one. It's our perceived differences that leads to racism. Black people were enslaved because of their perceived inferiority not based in reality. That experience has lead to a social category that need not have existed but nonetheless does.

None of the things you mentioned - schools, neighborhoods, sports teams are based on race at all, they are based on a community. You can go to school with a black kid and have a connection with him/her. I haven't said white people don't have identities, but to have a 'white identity' is absurd as there's no shared experience of being white. Black identity is different because there clearly is a shared experience there.