Do you want to prevent trans-people from competing because they have an advantage, or because you don't like trans-people?

conservatives are "funny" wrote:

Peach Pit wrote:

The overwhelming consensus on this board is that transwomen should not be able to compete against ciswomen. I agree with this opinion (for NCAA and pros at least). In my mind, it's unfair for transwomen to compete against ciswomen because of the biological advantages that come from going through puberty as a male. I've seen that same sentiment echoed many times here, but after seeing that Nikki Hiltz thread that was up for a couple days, I'm starting to think most people here don't actually believe that, and they only say it because it falls in line with their real position: They just don't like trans people.

It is blindingly obvious to me that if transwomen shouldn't compete against ciswomen due to biological advantages, that someone who's nonbinary (and born female) should be allowed to compete with ciswomen. Hiltz gained absolutely no advantage in the race by being non-binary. Alas, in that thread, there were a lot of people giving the absolutely braindead argument that "oH sHeS nOnBiNaRy sO wHy iS sHe CoMpEtiNg aGaiNsT fEmaLeS".

This line of argumentation shows me two things. First, you're literally calling Hiltz "she", so in your mind, Hiltz is a woman. The second is that you don't actually care about any biological advantages when it comes to trans people competing in sports. You're just looking for any excuse to trash trans-people.

Some people said Hiltz should have competed in the non-binary division. That's a way better argument, but currently there isn't a non-binary division for pros. There's a discussion to be had about making one, but without getting too much into it, I don't think it's worth it.

So I'm curious if most people here, like me, support trans-people in general but think it's unfair when it comes to sports, or if most people here don't support trans-people at all, but wheel out the biological advantages argument because it suits them at the time, even though they don't care if trans-people do have biological advantages.

I think half on letsrun oppose it because they just hold deep animus for certain groups of people rooted in their own mental problems and insecurities. In the real world, I would say the majority oppose it because it is unfair.

RunRagged wrote:

samcallan wrote:

What about people with a third chromosome?
Also, would ever competitor need to get tested?

It doesn't matter if a person has an unusual number of sex chromosomes - aka “aneuploidy"- because if one of the sex chromosomes is a Y, it almost always means he is male.

People who are 47,XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) and 47,XYY (Jacob's syndrome) are unambiguously male. People who are 47,XXX (Trisomy X) are unambiguously female. Same goes for

The presence of the Y chromosome means male nearly 100% of the time.

There are, however, some rare exceptions to the rule. Every once in a while, a human is conceived with 46,XY sex chromosomes where for some reason the male-determining SRY gene that is normally on the Y is missing. This causes XY fetuses to develop neither testes nor ovaries and to go down the female developmental pathway with internal Mullerian structures (Swyer syndrome).

On the other hand, every once in a while a human will have 46,XX chromosomes where one of the Xs will carry the SRY gene. Those persons develop as males with normal male gonads (testes) and external genitalia, and the other internal reproductive organs that males have such as prostates, vas deferens ducts and seminal vesicles - although their testes are usually on the small side and they are typically infertile.

It's very easy to deal with the issue of atypical sex chromosomes occasionally occurring in humans by testing athletes seeking to compete in women's and girls' sports for the presence of the male-determining SRY gene.

In the 1990s when the IOC and IAAF still did mandatory DNA testing by means of cheek swabs on all athletes seeking to compete in women's elite international sporting events, the testing was for the SRY gene.

If mandatory DNA testing were re-introduced in order to restore and insure fairness for female athletes, it would also be easy to write the rules so that XY athletes with one particular disorder of male sex development, CAIS, are still allowed to compete in women's events, but athletes with all other disorders of male sex development like XY 5-ARD and PAIS are not. A case could be made that athletes with CAIS should also be out, but many advocates of fairness for female athletes could live with a compromise whereby CAIS athletes with marginal or moderate physical advantages are in so long as it means that other XY DSD athletes with obvious and huge physical advantages like Semenya, Niyonsaba, Wambui, Chand, Mboma, Masilingi and others are out - and that all males with normal sex development who now claim opposite-sex gender identities are out as well.

Some people oppose re-introducing mandatory DNA testing as a way of making sure that female sports are confined to female athletes on the grounds that such testing is "too invasive." But brushing the inside of the mouth with a cotton swab to obtain DNA for testing is actually less invasive than a standard Covid test - and it doesn't involve any physical discomfort the way Covid testing often does.

DNA testing for sex chromosomes and the SRY gene is also less invasive than the mandatory screening for a host of inborn conditions of genetic origin that all babies born in the USA are required to get by law.

Most important, during the roughly 30-year period when DNA testing was mandatory for athletes in women's elite international competition, the large majority of female athletes supported the testing and thought it should continue. The only official complaints and legal challenges to stop the IAAF and IOC from making eligibility for women's competition contingent on having female sex chromosomes and no SRY gene came from a small number of athletes competing in women's events whom the testing revealed were XY with disorders of male sex development.

As for the question of whether every competitor would need to get tested, FINA's new regulations say that all athletes in boys' and men's as well as girls' and women's aquatics that it governs must be tested by their own federations - and that FINA will conduct additional testing to confirm that the results reported by federations are on the up and up.

Peach Pit wrote:

The overwhelming consensus on this board is that transwomen should not be able to compete against ciswomen. I agree with this opinion (for NCAA and pros at least). In my mind, it's unfair for transwomen to compete against ciswomen because of the biological advantages that come from going through puberty as a male. I've seen that same sentiment echoed many times here, but after seeing that Nikki Hiltz thread that was up for a couple days, I'm starting to think most people here don't actually believe that, and they only say it because it falls in line with their real position: They just don't like trans people.

It is blindingly obvious to me that if transwomen shouldn't compete against ciswomen due to biological advantages, that someone who's nonbinary (and born female) should be allowed to compete with ciswomen. Hiltz gained absolutely no advantage in the race by being non-binary. Alas, in that thread, there were a lot of people giving the absolutely braindead argument that "oH sHeS nOnBiNaRy sO wHy iS sHe CoMpEtiNg aGaiNsT fEmaLeS".

This line of argumentation shows me two things. First, you're literally calling Hiltz "she", so in your mind, Hiltz is a woman. The second is that you don't actually care about any biological advantages when it comes to trans people competing in sports. You're just looking for any excuse to trash trans-people.

Some people said Hiltz should have competed in the non-binary division. That's a way better argument, but currently there isn't a non-binary division for pros. There's a discussion to be had about making one, but without getting too much into it, I don't think it's worth it.

So I'm curious if most people here, like me, support trans-people in general but think it's unfair when it comes to sports, or if most people here don't support trans-people at all, but wheel out the biological advantages argument because it suits them at the time, even though they don't care if trans-people do have biological advantages.

Peach Pit wrote:

The overwhelming consensus on this board is that transwomen should not be able to compete against ciswomen. I agree with this opinion (for NCAA and pros at least). In my mind, it's unfair for transwomen to compete against ciswomen because of the biological advantages that come from going through puberty as a male. I've seen that same sentiment echoed many times here, but after seeing that Nikki Hiltz thread that was up for a couple days, I'm starting to think most people here don't actually believe that, and they only say it because it falls in line with their real position: They just don't like trans people.

It is blindingly obvious to me that if transwomen shouldn't compete against ciswomen due to biological advantages, that someone who's nonbinary (and born female) should be allowed to compete with ciswomen. Hiltz gained absolutely no advantage in the race by being non-binary. Alas, in that thread, there were a lot of people giving the absolutely braindead argument that "oH sHeS nOnBiNaRy sO wHy iS sHe CoMpEtiNg aGaiNsT fEmaLeS".

This line of argumentation shows me two things. First, you're literally calling Hiltz "she", so in your mind, Hiltz is a woman. The second is that you don't actually care about any biological advantages when it comes to trans people competing in sports. You're just looking for any excuse to trash trans-people.

Some people said Hiltz should have competed in the non-binary division. That's a way better argument, but currently there isn't a non-binary division for pros. There's a discussion to be had about making one, but without getting too much into it, I don't think it's worth it.

So I'm curious if most people here, like me, support trans-people in general but think it's unfair when it comes to sports, or if most people here don't support trans-people at all, but wheel out the biological advantages argument because it suits them at the time, even though they don't care if trans-people do have biological advantages.

huhuh wrote:

Peach Pit wrote:

The overwhelming consensus on this board is that transwomen should not be able to compete against ciswomen. I agree with this opinion (for NCAA and pros at least). In my mind, it's unfair for transwomen to compete against ciswomen because of the biological advantages that come from going through puberty as a male. I've seen that same sentiment echoed many times here, but after seeing that Nikki Hiltz thread that was up for a couple days, I'm starting to think most people here don't actually believe that, and they only say it because it falls in line with their real position: They just don't like trans people.

It is blindingly obvious to me that if transwomen shouldn't compete against ciswomen due to biological advantages, that someone who's nonbinary (and born female) should be allowed to compete with ciswomen. Hiltz gained absolutely no advantage in the race by being non-binary. Alas, in that thread, there were a lot of people giving the absolutely braindead argument that "oH sHeS nOnBiNaRy sO wHy iS sHe CoMpEtiNg aGaiNsT fEmaLeS".

This line of argumentation shows me two things. First, you're literally calling Hiltz "she", so in your mind, Hiltz is a woman. The second is that you don't actually care about any biological advantages when it comes to trans people competing in sports. You're just looking for any excuse to trash trans-people.

Some people said Hiltz should have competed in the non-binary division. That's a way better argument, but currently there isn't a non-binary division for pros. There's a discussion to be had about making one, but without getting too much into it, I don't think it's worth it.

So I'm curious if most people here, like me, support trans-people in general but think it's unfair when it comes to sports, or if most people here don't support trans-people at all, but wheel out the biological advantages argument because it suits them at the time, even though they don't care if trans-people do have biological advantages.

No one’s going to admit that they just “don’t like trans-people”, not even the ones who actually viscerally recoil in disgust at the sight of them. Most people find a way to rationalize their prejudices so that they fit their mental model of being a good reasonable person. Hate or dislike is an active negative emotion, rather most transphobes just don’t give a damn to the dignity and well being of transfolk, but that apathy in practice usually ends up being little different from hate in its impact on the marginalized.