It just outs any trans women that don't want to be out which is a problem
Transgender Athletes
- Thread starter Stack
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Only trans women who don't want to be out but do want to compete in elite sports with categories for different genders. Which is a strange path to go down if they feel strongly about not being out.
It's a huge contradiction.
- This isn't a double standard at all.
- A line has to be drawn somewhere, and in many instances, that line is sufficiently drawn between biological males and biological females. There are sports where things like weight categories have been introduced (typically combat sports and weightlifting), and in para- events we see other sub-categories so we don't, for example, just lump all "leg disabled" people in together.
- The average man isn't an elite athlete. The logical conclusion to your line of argument is that we create infinite sub-categories so that every possible advantage is taken into consideration, which is obviously insane. Of course some people have natural advantages over others. That's why they're elite athletes and the average man isn't.
I mean point 3 works for me, I'd love to have the chance to go to the Olympics under the "overweight, average height, sciatica sufferer" category, I might have a shot at a medal.
It might be good in terms of maintaining the fairness of the women's category, but it's obviously not a good solution for the trans athletes, as they are still being put in an "other" category, which is the exact opposite of what they want. They want to be recognized fully as the gender they feel represents them, so it would be equally bad for a transwoman to be put in an open category as not being allowed to compete - both will be a reminder that they are not a woman in the eyes of the sporting world.
Female and all others?
What do you mean?
I've already written about the arguments against having just "Female" and "Open/All others" categories.
But that's the reality. When viewed in the context of sporting integrity and fairness, it's inevitable. Same as it is in the context of, say, if they go to see a doctor with bladder problems.
There's hard limits on how far you can stretch the 'truth' to protect feelings.
But inclusivity isn't the end game in competitive sports, its fairness in the competition and the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Obviously outside of competitive sports it's entirely different and we should be looking for inclusivity.
No separate male category. Could you just have born female and then everyone else? Or is that effectively the same thing.
I agree with you both. I was just pointing out why the "Open" category solution, will not be seen as a good solution from the point of view of a trans person (most often a woman).
That's basically what I stated. I used "female" as a biological marker as we currently tend to refer to them as the men's and women's categories.
So yeah, "biological female" and "open" is met with resistance as an option.
At this stage, just have one open category, let everyone enter, let them be whatever the hell they want. Might be best to keep the weight classes for combat sports, just to be on the safe side.
Then let the strongest or fastest or bestest or most drugged up win.
Then let the strongest or fastest or bestest or most drugged up win.
That... no... that's now how that works.
What, you don't think a 180 pound woman would be equal to a 180 pound man in boxing or MMA? You must be one of them sexists.
Yeah, you're right, you wouldn't want to be offending people by allowing their weight to become public knowledge.
Just have one open category for everybody in every sport and let the cream rise to the top.
I guess the good news is people are now searching for solutions rather than dog whistling and abuse.
That may or may not happen. But I doubt anyone really cares if someone could get seriously physically injured when the more important thing is to be all inclusive and not hurt feelings.
I see it as the fairest way forward, let everyone compete in one class and let the best come out on top.
You’d also immediately make 99% of female born pro athletes irrelevant.
'Won't somebody stop and think of the feelings?!' they say, despite ignoring the feelings and thoughts of 1000s+ of female athletes.
Yeah, but at least everyone gets to compete is the same groups and nobody is discriminated against.
In athletic sports if the strongest and fastest will come out on top, and if that happens to be mostly biological men, then that's just the way it is.
They are doing these categories for all levels
Nope. They’re trialling them in a swimming World Cup event. That’s elite by any definition.
I can't tell if you're serious.
Only about the combat sports. I'd keep the weight classes.
The weight classes aren’t what I’m questioning
But in your example with Michael Phelps he's not enhancing himself artificially, he was born that weight and had the opportunity to become a world class swimmer. Even then he still lost to his peers every now and then and the differences between men and women are a lot more tangible, obvious and impactful. It's ont thing to say there are differences, and variance, between individuals but in this case the advantages we're talking about concern a whole sex gender and cannot be denied. You don't have to go take the top athletes to realize this as a man, on average, has an athletic advantage over an average woman.
Yeah, all common sense has already gone out the window. So just have 1 category for everyone to enter no defined genders, then just let the best, strongest, fastest, fittest etc. win. Then nobody can complain about being left out or it being unfair, everyone has the same chance to compete in and win. If you're not good enough, then you're not enough, you can have no complaints.The weight classes aren’t what I’m questioning
Initially I would think there shouldn't be a differences but in some of those examples there are sex categories, like let's say chess. I might be wrong but it was my understanding than men perform better than women, when they play each other and are similarly ranked.
Another example would be esports, games such as DotA2 and League of Legends I don't think there are sex categories, just one open categorie buyt is vastly occupied by men. Outside of strenght wouldn't things like endurance and reflexes would be an advantage for men? I'm just wondering because it doesn't seem there should be a difference in those activities but men end up performing better in almost everything.
Alrighty then
Exactly. It's fair enough to say that society could do with, or should accept, stretching that truth a bit in the interest of human happiness/fulfillment. But there are some points where that stretching crosses into absolute absurdity.
I wonder if in chess and esports as you have mentioned a factor would be that much more men take part in those things which leads to better performances
I can't say for esports, but in the comments about this chess story that I saw on some site or the other, they said that the reason why there are male and female categories in chess is because there are loads more men that play it than women, so by virtue of just the sheer numbers of men vs women it would be harder for women to break through in it, so a separate category was created. I have no idea if that is true, and it could very well be totally wrong but that made some sense to me.
That makes zero sense.
Yes, if less women play chess they have less chance of winning. But individuals play chess, it's not men vs women. X woman has just as much chance as winning as Y man.
The problem is there are so few top female chess players. At grandmaster level there's only something like 40 female grandmasters compared to about 2000 male. So if you didnt have female categories you'd never see them in paid tournaments and they'd never be able to make any money.
Yeah but surely if far less women play chess than men, just by virtue of the numbers you're far more likely to have more men dominating, no? And if it's all one pool of people and it's mostly dominated by men, then the knock on effect of that might be that women are less interested in it going forward, which would then turn it into a self propagating cycle? By giving women a separate category where there aren't overwhelmingly more numbers of men would you not give them the space for it to develop and generate more interest from them?
You are right in that there's no inherent difference between a man and a woman playing a chess match against each other as opposed to man vs man or woman vs woman, but I do think the numbers being heavily skewed in favor of men does put the women at a disadvantage, and the separate categories are worth it to try to reduce that skew.
That is if that point about the numbers is actually true.
What's wrong with that? Proportionally, it has to be entirely fair. More men play, more men win. Of course they do. That's common sense. Do the few women who play have less chance of winning than one of the men? Nope. Unless they're shit, they've just as much chance as winning.
That makes no sense.