Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Polonius wrote:

does a woman who has had these procedures to become a transgender man qualify to compete in male sporting events? The answer is almost undoubtedly no in most sports leagues, due to the testosterone the person would be taking on a regular basis to maintain their status... as taking extra testosterone is banned in most sporting leagues.

Nearly all leagues allow waivers for low testosterone as a medical condition. They are, as you can imagine, fairly rare (outside of the lightly regulated UFC).

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/ben_fowlkes/07/19/ufc.testosterone.problem/index.html

In practice, transmen are unlikely to have any unfair advantage, at least with age and gender appropiate hormone levels.

Polonius, as you note that article is talking about MMA... here is one that specifically talks about how the frequent low testosterone exemptions for MMA fighters is a problem and completely outside the norm of other major sporting leagues, including the Olympics:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10500652/therapeutic-use-exemptions-testosterone-mma-outpace-other-sports-lines-finds

• The International Olympic Committee did not issue a single testosterone exemption for the 2012 London Olympics, which featured 5,892 male athletes.

• The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency issued one testosterone exemption last year among the thousands of elite-level athletes under its jurisdiction.

• Major League Baseball has issued six exemptions to athletes over the past six seasons -- an average of 1,200 players populate its rosters each season.

• National Football League officials say testosterone exemptions are "very rare" and only a "handful" have been issued since 1990. Nearly 2,000 players circulate through rosters each season.

• No pro boxer is known to have had an exemption issued through a state athletic commission, and Nevada officials said they have never even received an application.

In other words, such exemptions are extremely rare with the EXCEPTION of MMA (again as you note, but just to emphasize it), and that article paints it as being pretty commonly known that it is abusive to allow it there so frequently / unfair to the other competitors.

But if your argument is that, a female who has had procedures to become a male is unlikely to have an advantage... I cannot reasonably think that you think the reverse would not be true- that a male who has had procedures to become a female is likely to have an advantage.

This is not civil rights, which are not in question, this is sporting league rules... and the onus is, in my opinion, on the person who has had a sex change to prove that they do not have an unfair advantage in order to gain an exemption to compete as the opposite sex, not the other way around. It was similar with Oscar Pistorius and his running blades- he apparently was able to prove (or scientists were) that they did not provide him an unfair advantage, even though they were an addition not normally allowed in competition for every other competitor.

That's really all it comes down to... the civil rights question is separate and, imo, is absolutely black and white: Yes, people can be transgendered. What professional sports league they qualify to compete in (a male league or a female one, or another entirely, depending on each specific league's rules) is another matter. Oscar Pistorius, for instance, had to compete against only athletes also using running blades for some time. His was a bit of a one-off case because most of these runners aren't able to compete at the top level anyway. But, it seems likely that a man who has had procedures to become a woman may indeed have a competitive advantage and be able to compete at the top levels of female athletics more easily than a runner with an amputated leg... and it is up to sporting leagues to determine whether such a person, undergoing the therapies that they are, qualifies for their competition under the strict substance rules they all follow now.

I'm glad you addressed this topic as no one really seems to want to talk about the sporting leagues which was supposedly the subject matter here, and what I find to be very interesting (being a big sports fan). However, I think most others just want to talk about the issue in general and about people who are biased against transgender people in general, which should be stamped out just like any bias in society is regarding civil rights... but competing in a sporting league that has strong restrictions is not a civil right, and a much more complex issue than the basic right to be transgendered (which is not in doubt, at least by most reasonable people, and by the law).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's another example- the disabled golfer who sued to be allowed to use a golf cart on the PGA tour. The Supreme Court said that yes, he could do that, as doing so did not alter the competition enough to disallow it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/30/sports/golf-disabled-golfer-may-use-a-cart-on-the-pga-tour-justices-affirm.html

In its appeal, the PGA Tour argued that the walking rule served the purpose of injecting ''the element of fatigue'' into the competition. The court today turned this argument against the Tour, relying on the trial court's finding that even riding in a cart, Mr. Martin faced at least as much fatigue as a healthy golfer walking the course, because of the need to get out of the cart at each hole to walk a total of a mile or more while making his shots.

So, through the courts this person was able to persuasively argue that riding in a golf cart did not present a competitive advantage.

Similarly, a transgender athlete would need to be granted an exception to the normal rules of competition, and thus to be able to prove either to the sporting league or to a court that they do not have any competitive advantage that the other competitors do not have access to.

In the case of a trasngender male (formerly female) wanting to compete in male sporting events, they would need the above testosterone exemption that I linked to / described.

The point is, there isn't a blanket "Yes it's fine" for transgender athletes in sporting leagues, even though there is a blanket "Yes it's fine" for transgender people regarding civil rights. Each league is different, each sport is different, and what may be OK for one league may not be OK for another. An all-female wrestling league may not allow such an athlete, while a ski-jumping league may (as I understand the women go pretty much just as far as the men there, anyway ).

So, it's a nuanced issue of where a transgendered athlete would be allowed to compete, and not at all black and white, unlike the civil rights issue which is totally black and white. It will need to be dealt with by each league/sport individually depending on what is required to compete in that sport.

 Lesebyst wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Once a person identifies themselves as 'a woman' and people accept them as a woman, then that person is female as she is 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Being born male doesn't change that...

The majority's perception defines reality. If enough people say 'yes, she is a woman now' , then she is a woman, her past is no longer her definition. Her current state is.

The person hasn't undergone a genetic change, they don't become 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Can I declare myself Black/Asian or is it just gender which is governed by these bizarre opt-in rules?

That logic works perfectly with women that are born unable to bare children or produce eggs. My mistake, that clearly makes them males by your definition

 RiTides wrote:
Polonius, that article is talking about MMA... I'll give you one that specifically talks about how the frequent low testosterone exemptions for MMA fighters is a problem and completely outside the norm of other major sporting leagues, including the Olympics:

that's actually the article I was looking for. I think the point is, getting an exemption isn't impossible, it's just extremely difficult. That's a big difference.

But if your argument is that, a female who has had procedures to become a male is unlikely to have an advantage... I cannot reasonably think that you think the reverse would not be true- that a male who has had procedures to become a female is likely to have an advantage.

I don't disagree. I"m just curious how much of an advantage it would be. Would nearly any transwoman dominate competition? Would they have substantial, but within bell curve, advantages? Or would they likely not be a major factor on the podium?

This is not civil rights, which are not in question, this is sporting league rules... and the onus is, in my opinion, on the person who has had a sex change to prove that they do not have an unfair advantage in order to gain an exemption, not the other way around. It was similar with Oscar Pistorius and his running blades- he apparently was able to prove (or scientists were) that they did not provide him an unfair advantage.

I think that's fair. I mean, it's unfair to the competitor, but fair to the other competitiors. I mean, you end up trying to prove a negative.

I'm glad you addressed this topic as no one really seems to want to talk about the sporting leagues which was supposedly the subject matter here, and what I find to be very interesting (being a big sports fan). However, I think most others just want to talk about the issue in general and about people who are biased against transgender people in general, which should be stamped out just like any bias in society is regarding civil rights... but competing in a sporting league that has strong restrictions is not a civil right, and a much more complex issue than the basic right to be transgender (which is not in doubt, at least by most reasonable people and by the law).

Well, we can jaw policy all we want, but if a state determines that the right to compete as a woman is a civil right, that's that.

At it's broadest leve, Civil Rights are about how a person can interact freely with society. So, it is a matter of civil rights. Of course, nearly all non-consitutional such rights (and more then a few of those) can and are abridged due to necessity.

The question becomes, as I posed ealier, what is more important: the validity of competition, or a person's right to compete as their legal sex?

I'm a sports fan, and if there were transmen that could hit the strike zone with 90 mph fast balls, I'd want major league baseball to grant them steroid waivers and let them play. If a transman had no higher testosterone then a cis-man, why block him?

The male to female is the only real issue I see, and it makes sense, given the physiological differences between even elite male and female athletes. To an extent, very few elite athletes are trans, so it doesn't matter at high levels, but I suppose local clubs could get bogged down in stuff.

I would make the standard that if a transperson has an advantage beyond the normal, "life ain't fair" type, then banning might be justified. But nearly all sports involve situations where sheer size or height or other inborn factor is key. If a person is tall or built because they are trans, but no more than any other outlier, what's the net harm?

 Polonius wrote:

But if your argument is that, a female who has had procedures to become a male is unlikely to have an advantage... I cannot reasonably think that you think the reverse would not be true- that a male who has had procedures to become a female is likely to have an advantage.

I don't disagree. I"m just curious how much of an advantage it would be. Would nearly any transwoman dominate competition? Would they have substantial, but within bell curve, advantages? Or would they likely not be a major factor on the podium?

I'm right there with you... actually quite curious about this now.

But, my gut feeling is that a transgendered female (formerly male) would indeed have a pretty strong advantage- not that just any person could dominate competition, but that they would be much more likely to than most other exceptions that have been granted in sporting leagues (like I discussed above). I think, similar to Oscar Pistorius' situation and the disabled golfer who wanted to use a cart, they would have to prove in court or to the league's governing body that their procedure (having formerly been male) did not grant them a competitive advantage. This could then likely be applied to any athlete in a similar position wanting to compete in that particular sporting league (but not other leagues).

However, I find the issue very interesting... so again, thanks for actually discussing that part with me . Also, I had edited my post above as I realized you had already noted that the MMA exceptions were, well... the exception not the rule for most sporting leagues.

 KingCracker wrote:

 Lesebyst wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Once a person identifies themselves as 'a woman' and people accept them as a woman, then that person is female as she is 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Being born male doesn't change that...

The majority's perception defines reality. If enough people say 'yes, she is a woman now' , then she is a woman, her past is no longer her definition. Her current state is.

The person hasn't undergone a genetic change, they don't become 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Can I declare myself Black/Asian or is it just gender which is governed by these bizarre opt-in rules?

That logic works perfectly with women that are born unable to bare children or produce eggs. My mistake, that clearly makes them males by your definition

No that's a total failure in comprehension, they are still female because they are OF the sex that can produce young. They don't have to produce eggs to qualify.

 RiTides wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

But if your argument is that, a female who has had procedures to become a male is unlikely to have an advantage... I cannot reasonably think that you think the reverse would not be true- that a male who has had procedures to become a female is likely to have an advantage.

I don't disagree. I"m just curious how much of an advantage it would be. Would nearly any transwoman dominate competition? Would they have substantial, but within bell curve, advantages? Or would they likely not be a major factor on the podium?

I'm right there with you... actually quite curious about this now.

But, my gut feeling is that a transgendered female (formerly male) would indeed have a pretty strong advantage- not that just any person could dominate competition, but that they would be much more likely to than most other exceptions that have been granted in sporting leagues (like I discussed above).

However, I find the issue very interesting... so again, thanks for actually discussing that part with me . Also, I had edited my post above as I realized you had already noted that the MMA exceptions were, well... the exception not the rule for most sporting leagues.

I think there is evidence that an elite (or likely even borderline elite) male athlete, once trans, would have a strong relative boost to her performance as a woman.

this is why, IMO, the Olympic rules are so fascinating. The Olympics, for nearly all non-football/bat&ball games, is the highest level of competition, and they allow transwomen to compete as women, with strict limits. The Olympics is a genuinely big deal.

So, to me, the though that hte local Crossfit Gym feels the purity of their competition is somehow more important is bit chuckleworthy.

I think the fear most people have is that you'd have tons of dudes get sex changes, and dominate female sports. That simply seems unlikley, given the length of time it would take, the psychological screening sex reassignment surgery requires, and the sheer need to change sex in order to do better in sports.

To me, I almost wonder if allowing transwomen to compete would merely add a handful of upper level competitiors, and perhaps give some sports one or two transcendent atheletes a generation. I mean, it wasn't fair to Charles Barkley to play ball during the Michael Jordan years. Jordan was born the greatest competitior in NBA history. It wouldn't be fair to have a transwoman dominate a sport, but would it be more unfair?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lesebyst wrote:
No that's a total failure in comprehension, they are still female because they are OF the sex that can produce young. They don't have to produce eggs to qualify.

So what seperates a barren woman from a transwoman?

 Polonius wrote:

 Lesebyst wrote:
No that's a total failure in comprehension, they are still female because they are OF the sex that can produce young. They don't have to produce eggs to qualify.

So what seperates a barren woman from a transwoman?

A barren woman is of the sex (ie has the same sex chromosomes) of those that can produce young. A transwoman is not of the sex of those that can produce young. It's really not a hard concept :/ If I met a transwoman I'd talk to them using whatever title they requested, I'd take them on as a client or if they applied for a job I'd consider hiring them based on their skills. But, I'd still think of them as biological male and I wouldn't feel it was fair on people with XX sex chromosomes to have to compete against them in certain sporting events.

 Lesebyst wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Is race the same thing as gender?

Race and gender are both two descriptors of genetic traits.

Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation.
Also read this: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/082200sci-genetics-race.html
Race is principally a social construct.

Gender is the range of physical, biological, mental and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. So, if the physical, mental and behavioral characteristics are female, what does this mean for the biological.

And, again, if the social recognition of an individual is to accept their request to be regarded as female, if we say that someone is female, they are female, regardless of your bizarre insistence on them possessing the ability to lay eggs or spawn.

 Lesebyst wrote:

Why is genetics the identifier for gender and treatment of the individual in society over public social acceptance?

How about genetics is the identifier for gender because gender is determined by genetics? As for gender being the basis of the treatment of people in society, are you asking me to try to explain the occurrence of sexist attitudes in a historically patriarchal society?

See above... Also we are not talking about historical settings, or we'd still be denying women the vote, sending our old to die in workhouses and our young up chimneys, we are talking about a more enlightened (in the most part) society continually moving towards full acceptance and it's treatment of trans individuals being free to claim the gender they wish without some idiot blocking them by claiming 'cos science' and bending dictionary definitions and genetics to abuse and deny individuals within a socially constructed setting.
A deaf person can be said to be genetically inferior, we do not regard that deaf person as inferior within society, we accept them, make accommodation for them and embrace them as equals, only the lowest form of gak would treat them as inferior, regardless of the scientific claim of inferiority. Your use, or rather misuse of science to claim justification for ignorance towards transgendered individuals has no bearing on the matter at hand, which is sociological.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lesebyst wrote:
But, I'd still think of them as biological male

Then you would be prejudiced.

 Lesebyst wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Lesebyst wrote:
No that's a total failure in comprehension, they are still female because they are OF the sex that can produce young. They don't have to produce eggs to qualify.

So what seperates a barren woman from a transwoman?

A barren woman is of the sex (ie has the same sex chromosomes) of those that can produce young. A transwoman is not of the sex of those that can produce young. It's really not a hard concept :/ If I met a transwoman I'd talk to them using whatever title they requested, I'd take them on as a client or if they applied for a job I'd consider hiring them based on their skills. But, I'd still think of them as biological male and I wouldn't feel it was fair on people with XX sex chromosomes to have to compete against them in certain sporting events.

I"m sure you've figured out how to handle those people that are neither XX nor XY genetically, of course.

Not to mention the medical literature on individuals with male anatomy but XX chormosomes, or vice versa.

I think you'll find that bringing genetics into discussions of sex and gender muddies, rather than clears, the situation.

 Polonius wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

But if your argument is that, a female who has had procedures to become a male is unlikely to have an advantage... I cannot reasonably think that you think the reverse would not be true- that a male who has had procedures to become a female is likely to have an advantage.

I don't disagree. I"m just curious how much of an advantage it would be. Would nearly any transwoman dominate competition? Would they have substantial, but within bell curve, advantages? Or would they likely not be a major factor on the podium?

I'm right there with you... actually quite curious about this now.

But, my gut feeling is that a transgendered female (formerly male) would indeed have a pretty strong advantage- not that just any person could dominate competition, but that they would be much more likely to than most other exceptions that have been granted in sporting leagues (like I discussed above).

However, I find the issue very interesting... so again, thanks for actually discussing that part with me . Also, I had edited my post above as I realized you had already noted that the MMA exceptions were, well... the exception not the rule for most sporting leagues.

I think there is evidence that an elite (or likely even borderline elite) male athlete, once trans, would have a strong relative boost to her performance as a woman.

this is why, IMO, the Olympic rules are so fascinating. The Olympics, for nearly all non-football/bat&ball games, is the highest level of competition, and they allow transwomen to compete as women, with strict limits.

I agree that it is very fascinating... however, the Olympics have made notable blunders in the past, and the IOC is rife with infighting and politics. Like any other agency, I imagine . However, the fact that they allowed it by no means determines whether Crossfit has to allow it, of course... it is interesting how seriously Crossfit competition / competitors take themselves, but knowing one in-person it's also just how they are for some reason. So, given that it's a private competition, they have every right to make their own call on this, admittedly fascinating, issue rather than follow lockstep with the IOC.

Also, Crossfit involves a lot of things like weightlifting- things where a male obviously has quite an advantage over a female, so the designation becomes very important for their competition. Obviously, the Olympics has weight lifting too, which is why as you say, their decision is fascinating... I would be especially interested if that decision would remain as-is if a transgendered athlete began to dominate the competition, or would only remain when it is more of a hypothetical / not results affecting decision.

Well biology lessons are going to be pretty awkward affairs in the future...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Lesebyst wrote:
But, I'd still think of them as biological male

Then you would be prejudiced.

Fine, I'll be prejudiced by merely treating them with respect and offering them the same opportunities I'd offer anyone else and you can be morally superior by thinking of transwomen as 'she' in your head. Glad we cleared that up. Can we get back to whether they should be allowed to compete against people who didn't change their gender?

 Polonius wrote:


I"m sure you've figured out how to handle those people that are neither XX nor XY genetically, of course.

Not to mention the medical literature on individuals with male anatomy but XX chormosomes, or vice versa.

I think you'll find that bringing genetics into discussions of sex and gender muddies, rather than clears, the situation.

1 out of every 2000 people have opposite chromosomes to their genitals, some even have XXY. Most of these people live a full life, have children never knowing they have the wrong genitals.

Some on the other hand have rough puberties as their body attempts to develop opposite to the genitals they developed in the womb. This leads to boys ending up with very feminine qualities or girls growing into traditional 'man-like' qualities. Sometimes parents rush to the doctors and do hormones to keep their child developing 'on course' with what society deems normal.

So a person who is XY who developed a vagina in the womb but had the puberty of a young male and developed as such would be 'legally a woman' and could compete, but a person who is XX who developed a penis in the womb but had the puberty of a woman cannot? The XY with a vagina would have a huge advantage in sports. I also don't think sports are going to do the effort of 'genetic testing' for every entry.

Also, Crossfit is based upon weightclass. Sports like wrestling are co-ed and are also based upon weightclass. It is not like she would be competing against others who are drastically smaller than her. Weightclass is a big equalizer. Are they worried people are going to cheat by chopping off wieners? What is the harm?

If the genetic testing for chromosomes became fast and easy, I wonder how many people would love to find out they have opposite chromosomes to their perceived gender and then have their marriages annulled or rights revoked based upon that? Yeah, let's make that happen...

Anybody arguing in this thread should at least be aware of these 2 concepts otherwise they're won't be able to have an informed opinion on the discussion.

1. Gender = Social ideas of male, female and intersex (clothes you wear, how you act, the way you walk, etc).
2. Sex = Biological ideas of male, female and intersex (pregnancy, semen, chromosomes, etc).

 Cheesecat wrote:
Anybody arguing in this thread should at least be aware of these 2 concepts otherwise they're won't be able to have an informed opinion on the discussion.

1. Gender = Social ideas of male, female and intersex (clothes you wear, how you act, the way you walk, etc).
2. Sex = Biological ideas of male, female and intersex (pregnancy, semen, chromosomes, etc).

Gender is also used to refer to the members of one or another sex, hence the confusion

Gender
a : sex <the feminine gender>
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

I guess when talking about transsexuals it's better to use gender as in your example.

 RiTides wrote:

I agree that it is very fascinating... however, the Olympics have made notable blunders in the past, and the IOC is rife with infighting and politics. Like any other agency, I imagine . However, the fact that they allowed it by no means determines whether Crossfit has to allow it, of course... it is interesting how seriously Crossfit competition / competitors take themselves, but knowing one in-person it's also just how they are for some reason. So, given that it's a private competition, they have every right to make their own call on this, admittedly fascinating, issue rather than follow lockstep with the IOC.

Well, it seems that whether they have the right to make the call as they see fit is a bit up in the air. I mean, New York state took that right away from professional tennis nearly 40 years ago.

States with strong identity rights laws and expansive definitions of public accomodations (hey California!) are going to start making calls in this area. It's damn near inevitable.

To go down a different rabbit hole, a lot of amateur events do have more harsh restrictions then elite stuff: what gear you can use, or even weight/height limits. See sprint football, for example. You could include height/weight limits for female competitors, or mandate a minimum body fat level.

Also, Crossfit involves a lot of things like weightlifting- things where a male obviously has quite an advantage over a female, so the designation becomes very important for their competition. Obviously, the Olympics has weight lifting too, which is why as you say, their decision is fascinating... I would be especially interested if that decision would remain as-is if a transgendered athlete began to dominate the competition, or would only remain when it is more of a hypothetical / not results affecting decision.

And I think it's a good reason to include them, especially locally. More data is better data, as they say.

I mean, it's possible that a transwoman could dominate, but it's also possible for a cis-woman to dominate. I guess the question is if trans-woman generally outperform cis women, both in terms of ceiling and average performance. Can a mediocre athlete as a man become a dominate female athelete?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lesebyst wrote:

Gender is also used to refer to the members of one or another sex, hence the confusion

there is often, but not always, agreement between a person's gender and sex. Not everybody is so lucky.

 Lesebyst wrote:
Well biology lessons are going to be pretty awkward affairs in the future...

No, they really aren't. Biology lessons aren't social behavior lessons. You're problem is you're treating them as such in this discussion. Do you do the same when you encounter disabled people?

 Lesebyst wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Lesebyst wrote:
But, I'd still think of them as biological male

Then you would be prejudiced.

Fine, I'll be prejudiced by merely treating them with respect and offering them the same opportunities I'd offer anyone else and you can be morally superior by thinking of transwomen as 'she' in your head. Glad we cleared that up. Can we get back to whether they should be allowed to compete against people who didn't change their gender?

Being quietly racist doesn't stop you being racist, being quietly assured that a transgender woman in your employ is basically still a bloke in a frock is similarly holding a prejudice, despite how you claim you'll treat them with respect. You are not even granting the first respect of accepting them for who they wish to be. A polite facade is not respect, it's avoiding an employment tribunal.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
[ A polite facade is not respect, it's avoiding an employment tribunal.

I like that.

The nature of prejudice has changed in the last 100 years. There was a time where it was acceptable to celebrate a lynching in some parts of this country, but public reaction to overt bigotry has gotten increasingly uncomfortable since about the 1930s.

But, alas, we live in a society where everybody is convinced they are super clever, and by repeating a few phrases and avoiding a few words, they can appear tolerance.

 Lesebyst wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Anybody arguing in this thread should at least be aware of these 2 concepts otherwise they're won't be able to have an informed opinion on the discussion.

1. Gender = Social ideas of male, female and intersex (clothes you wear, how you act, the way you walk, etc).
2. Sex = Biological ideas of male, female and intersex (pregnancy, semen, chromosomes, etc).

Gender is also used to refer to the members of one or another sex, hence the confusion

Gender
a : sex <the feminine gender>
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

I guess when talking about transsexuals it's better to use gender as in your example.

I think at one time gender and sex were interchangeable but with departments like sociology have now created a distinction between the two concepts and as far as I'm aware has been accepted by other academic disciplines such as biology, anthropology, psychology, etc and even many

societies in general seem to recognize this difference as I see many people in general making these same distinctions when talking about the subject of gender and sex.

 Polonius wrote:

But, alas, we live in a society where everybody is convinced they are super clever, and by repeating a few phrases and avoiding a few words, they can appear tolerance.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Here's Mrs Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian to explain more.

 Polonius wrote:
But, alas, we live in a society where everybody is convinced they are super clever, and by repeating a few phrases and avoiding a few words, they can appear tolerance.

If everybody appears tolerant surely we are getting to the point where more of us are genuinely tolerant?

Obviously suppressing repugnant opinions can be intolerance itself, but for some issues it's probably healthy to have some people be afraid of voicing their thoughts.

nkelsch wrote:
[If the genetic testing for chromosomes became fast and easy, I wonder how many people would love to find out they have opposite chromosomes to their perceived gender and then have their marriages annulled or rights revoked based upon that? Yeah, let's make that happen...

That's extremely sensationalist, as you seem to be assuming that the law would be changed to define gender as what chromosomes a person has, ignoring what organs they happen to have on their body

You're also talking about civil rights again (marriage), and we all know how that is trending (that before too much longer, any two consenting adults will be allowed to legally marry in most developed countries). As opposed to talking about the requirements for competing in a professional sporting league.

If you look at the link I posted above, the bar is quite high in a sporting league for someone to be allowed to take supplemental testosterone. A transgendered man (formerly a woman) would need to do so. Thus, this is a more nuanced discussion than whether or not someone has the right to be transgendered (they do)... the question is, what category do they fall into for sporting competition with strict requirements about what supplements athletes can/cannot ingest, etc.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Biology lessons aren't social behavior lessons. You're problem is you're treating them as such in this discussion. Do you do the same when you encounter disabled people?

Right so we need different definitions of male/female depending on what class we're in? Secondly, do I do ~what~ the same when I encounter disabled people? Treat them as if they were a social lesson? I... don't follow.

 Lesebyst wrote:
Being quietly racist doesn't stop you being racist, being quietly assured that a transgender woman in your employ is basically still a bloke in a frock is similarly holding a prejudice, despite how you claim you'll treat them with respect. You are not even granting the first respect of accepting them for who they wish to be. A polite facade is not respect, it's avoiding an employment tribunal.

lol you think it's the same as being quietly racist? As much as you don't want to accept this, I don't have a dislike or distrust of them and I also don't think of them as inferior. God I'm such a prejudiced bastard, clinging onto this bizarre idea I've got into my head that sex is determined on a genetic level...

 Lesebyst wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Biology lessons aren't social behavior lessons. You're problem is you're treating them as such in this discussion. Do you do the same when you encounter disabled people?

Right so we need different definitions of male/female depending on what class we're in? Secondly, do I do ~what~ the same when I encounter disabled people? Treat them as if they were a social lesson? I... don't follow.

Do you regard disabled people negatively? They are genetically inferior to 'the rest of us', by dint of their disability. Do you regard them differently because genetics tells us they are substandard?

 Lesebyst wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Being quietly racist doesn't stop you being racist, being quietly assured that a transgender woman in your employ is basically still a bloke in a frock is similarly holding a prejudice, despite how you claim you'll treat them with respect. You are not even granting the first respect of accepting them for who they wish to be. A polite facade is not respect, it's avoiding an employment tribunal.

lol you think it's the same as being quietly racist? As much as you don't want to accept this, I don't have a dislike or distrust of them and I also don't think of them as inferior. God I'm such a prejudiced bastard, clinging onto this bizarre idea I've got into my head that sex is determined on a genetic level...

Yes, you are prejudiced, I don't know if you're a bastard as we've never met, but you are prejudiced if you hold a science definition not suitable for social definition over people's heads in social interaction.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Yes, you are prejudiced, I don't know if you're a bastard as we've never met, but you are prejudiced if you hold a science definition not suitable for social definition over people's heads in social interaction.

It is my personal opinion that scientific truths should never yield to social ones.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Do you regard disabled people negatively? They are genetically inferior to 'the rest of us', by dint of their disability. Do you regard them differently because genetics tells us they are substandard?

Of course not, that's a ridiculous assumption to make. I don't hold anyone to be inferior based on their genes/race/social status/hair colour/army choice. Do you?

Yes, you are prejudiced, I don't know if you're a bastard as we've never met, but you are prejudiced if you hold a science definition not suitable for social definition over people's heads in social interaction.

You're mistaking the inability for my inner voice to switch from 'him' to 'her' when thinking about a transwoman as some precursor to a negative opinion. It's not.

 Lesebyst wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Do you regard disabled people negatively? They are genetically inferior to 'the rest of us', by dint of their disability. Do you regard them differently because genetics tells us they are substandard?

Of course not, that's a ridiculous assumption to make. I don't hold anyone to be inferior based on their genes/race/social status/hair colour/army choice. Do you?

You've just used genetics as the reasoning for denying a transgendered woman the right to be regarded as a woman, the same genetics tell us that a person born with a disability is genetically inferior to a person born physically or mentally fully capable person, if we follow your argument that 'because biology', then applying that across the spectrum, we should be down(s) with treating the disabled as inferior, because they are genetically inferior. My point that we don't hold genetics against people in how we treat them, because that would be crass and gakky, just like we shouldn't hold genetics at birth against a person who identifies with and takes steps to become another gender. Your genetics argument only holds ground if we treat everyone according to how they appear genetically, in the case of the less able, that's less capable.

 Lesebyst wrote:

Yes, you are prejudiced, I don't know if you're a bastard as we've never met, but you are prejudiced if you hold a science definition not suitable for social definition over people's heads in social interaction.

You're mistaking the inability for my inner voice to switch from 'him' to 'her' when thinking about a transwoman as some precursor to a negative opinion. It's not.

You've just admitted you would not recognise a transgendered person for the gender they identify with, you'd just be polite to their face. I believe you when you say you would not act on your prejudice, but you have just said you are prejudiced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Yes, you are prejudiced, I don't know if you're a bastard as we've never met, but you are prejudiced if you hold a science definition not suitable for social definition over people's heads in social interaction.

It is my personal opinion that scientific truths should never yield to social ones.

Similar arguments have been used in the past to quite unpleasant ends.

I think the simple question here is what is the harm in allowing vs what is the harm in discriminating?

 RiTides wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
[If the genetic testing for chromosomes became fast and easy, I wonder how many people would love to find out they have opposite chromosomes to their perceived gender and then have their marriages annulled or rights revoked based upon that? Yeah, let's make that happen...

That's extremely sensationalist, as you seem to be assuming that the law would be changed to define gender as what chromosomes a person has, ignoring what organs they happen to have on their body

You're also talking about civil rights again (marriage), and we all know how that is trending (that before too much longer, any two consenting adults will be allowed to legally marry in most developed countries). As opposed to talking about the requirements for competing in a professional sporting league.

If you look at the link I posted above, the bar is quite high in a sporting league for someone to be allowed to take supplemental testosterone. A transgendered man (formerly a woman) would need to do so. Thus, this is a more nuanced discussion than whether or not someone has the right to be transgendered (they do)... the question is, what category do they fall into for sporting competition with strict requirements about what supplements athletes can/cannot ingest, etc.

Well, not all transgendered people need hormone treatment... hence the array of syndromes. Some already have the 'hormone machine' of the opposite gender and already developed as such and are not taking supplements, simply have the wrong genitals. There is a large range of differences in the transgendered community and they are in different states of flux based upon their own situation. It is very hard to make a 'one size fits all' as you could have two transgendered people who are now 'male' and one takes a ton of testosterone and one takes none. You can also have people who do not get the surgery and have a huge advantage by being cranking out the testosterone of a man naturally, gone through puberty of a male adolescent but was born with a fully functional vagina.

I think that applying ban/limited substance rules to them is fine. If your individual transgender journey takes you on a path where you take hormones or developmental medicines which run afoul of professional sports, then banning you on those grounds I think is reasonable. I also think case by case digression is also an option should those originations choose to do that. I think blanket bans on the 'meat between ones legs' does exclude a small but real aspect of society as there are numerous people who have 'nothing' down there, or have damage stuff down there due to parents decisions which simply fall between the cracks, let alone those who are undergoing or in-between correction surgery.

Seems dumb to me. Crossfit's weightclasses should be 'fair enuff' to sort out the transgendered competitors and not even make an issue of it. Not like a 300lb wall of muscle is competing against 120lb women. I would think they would want to be inclusive as 'crossfit competitions' are to get people into those gyms and getting people to gyms is to make money.

 RiTides wrote:
If you look at the link I posted above, the bar is quite high in a sporting league for someone to be allowed to take supplemental testosterone. A transgendered man (formerly a woman) would need to do so. Thus, this is a more nuanced discussion than whether or not someone has the right to be transgendered (they do)... the question is, what category do they fall into for sporting competition with strict requirements about what supplements athletes can/cannot ingest, etc.

It isn't really an issue because they're only taking testosterone to bring their hormones up to normal male levels. As long as they fall inside the normal male range then they shouldn't have any advantage.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It is my personal opinion that scientific truths should never yield to social ones.

But it isn't a scientific truth. Binary sex/gender is a social construct in the first place, one that exists because for many purposes it's convenient to deal with the most common situations and ignore the rare cases that break the general rule. But there's nothing inherent in the universe that defines "male" or "female", or says that "what's between your legs" or "what chromosomes you have" is the appropriate defining characteristic instead of "how your brain works". All you're doing is making the unjustified assumption that the social "truth" that you happen to prefer is actually the scientific "truth", and somehow superior to all others.

Does anyone else find Betty Bowers really hot? I dunno why but I really do.

Also, may have missed it, but can anyone explain the lawsuit to me? Aren't private organizations allowed to make their own rules? I'm not a lawyer so this one vexes me.

CrossFit is a weight loss and exercise company, yes? Isn't this "competition" really just a marketing ploy to bolster sales? She's seeking 2.5 million dollars because why exactly?

It's a money grab. Not everything LGTBQ related is truly about fighting for equality. Trans-people are well, people. And people often sue for self-serving means.

nkelsch wrote:
I think that applying ban/limited substance rules to them is fine. If your individual transgender journey takes you on a path where you take hormones or developmental medicines which run afoul of professional sports, then banning you on those grounds I think is reasonable. I also think case by case digression is also an option should those originations choose to do that. I think blanket bans on the 'meat between ones legs' does exclude a small but real aspect of society as there are numerous people who have 'nothing' down there, or have damage stuff down there due to parents decisions which simply fall between the cracks, let alone those who are undergoing or in-between correction surgery.

I actually totally agree with this- treating it on a case-by-case basis would be fine, and appropriate, as you say... since every case may be different.

 Peregrine wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
If you look at the link I posted above, the bar is quite high in a sporting league for someone to be allowed to take supplemental testosterone. A transgendered man (formerly a woman) would need to do so. Thus, this is a more nuanced discussion than whether or not someone has the right to be transgendered (they do)... the question is, what category do they fall into for sporting competition with strict requirements about what supplements athletes can/cannot ingest, etc.

It isn't really an issue because they're only taking testosterone to bring their hormones up to normal male levels. As long as they fall inside the normal male range then they shouldn't have any advantage.

It is an issue, because it's currently against the rules in almost every professional sporting league. Thus, an exception has to be granted (which, as described in the above articles, is extremely rare). I'm not necessarily saying that exception shouldn't be granted, on a case-by-case basis, but that it is in fact an issue that must be considered. Currently, athletes undergoing testosterone treatment would not be allowed to compete in most sporting leagues... and the details would likely need to be worked out on a case-by-case basis, as nkelsch says.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's a "problem", I'm saying it's an "issue". There is some discussion here as if none of these things matter, and they might not to you . But, to a sporting league that regulates what athletes can and cannot take extremely closely, it matters quite a bit! Which is the whole point of discussing it- not to discriminate against anyone, but to find the appropriate place for transgendered athletes to compete (where there are choices) or if there are some leagues where it is not possible to do so due to the treatment required to maintain their body's levels.

So... yes, it is very much an issue to consider, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a problem just a unique case to consider.