You're viewing a single thread.
If we're talking about Lemmy rather than wider society then;
Inb4; I'm broadly in support of trans people and trans rights/equality but I think there are three small snagging issues
That people who identify as a women but who went through puberty as a male shouldn't be competing in women's sports. I think it's a basic issue of fairness and that it ultimately disincentives people born female from entering a career in sports competitions.
That there is a serious debate to be had about trans people in women's changing rooms. I know it is a very nuanced and sensitive topic and I don't pretend that I have the answer, but I don't think it is as simple as "I identify as X so I'll use X changing room". I'd like to make it clear that I don't think this is a "sneaky perv" issue but rather a debate about spaces that should possibly be reserved for people born as female.
That no permanent changes should be made to the bodies of children. If you're not old enough to get a tattoo, piercing, drink, smoke etc. Then you're not old enough to make an extremely important decision that will effect you for the rest of your life.
That last one always frustrates me to read. Nobody would make the same argument for an invasive tumour removal operation. Gender dysphoria is a life threatening condition, and if an expert is convinced that early permanent intervention is required, then it should be performed. Transitioning is not in the same category as a piercing or a tattoo. It's a life saving treatment.
This is not to say that such drastic measures should be taken lightly. It seems to be generally avoidable.
I would argue that if you had a tumor at age ten then waiting until 18 may not be possible, but you could wait until you're 18 to make permanent changes to your body as part of a transition. Although I accept that gender dysphoria can be extremely challenging to mental health, I don't think it's equatable to dying from cancer.
There are many things children can do to transition up to the point they are an adult and fully responsible for themselves that are wholly reversible. I personally think that's where the line should be drawn.
I do understand however that it's an extremely nuanced subject and I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert. I can only speak from personal experience that I wouldn't want to be held to account for many of the things I said, the beliefs I had and the opinions that I held when I was a child (I don't even want to be held to account for some of those things as an adult, but that's life, after you're considered an adult, it's on you).
It's not always possible to wait until 18. I do agree that reversible treatments tend to be enough until the time is right, but don't want to completely prevent early permanent treatment if the medical professionals think it's necessary.
I think all sports aren't equal in this. The rules for MMA would surely be different than the rules for curling or chess. The people who control sports organizations usually have a life dedicated to their sport, and are in a much better place to make a call about it than congress or randos on the internet. This matter should be handled by them. The fact that anyone without skin in the game cares about this at all is a losing battle.
If sex doesn't matter in curling or chess, then why are there different competitions for men and women in curling and why do women get their own titles in chess?
I do understand the sentiment of what you're saying, but it's not the reality we live in.
I can't speak to curling, but in chess the womens' leagues are there to get women involved. There are no biological advantages at play. This is a 2000 year old game they were excluded from playing until 100 years ago. So someone could put forth a good argument that it's more about gender than physical sex.
There's actually a big different in mens and women's IQ distribution. Men are all over the map, from extremely dumb to extremely smart, but women tend to statistically cluster in the middle with comparatively few outliers. Way less mentally deficient, very few Bobby Fischers.
There are very few women chess players at the top level of the game. The reasons for this are debatable, it could simply be that women are less interested in chess or that women are put off by a male dominated "sport", but I've also heard that men are much more likely to have a specific type of autism that makes them especially suited to doing well at chess.
I'm absolutely open minded to the idea that women can become top level chess players and that women's titles could be made redundant, but I think it's reasonable to see the evidence of this before we say that it's an equal playing field for both sexes. I'd suggest that we should see a decent proportion of women in the top one hundred players of the world, or even the top two hundred and fifty.
Given the current ranking of chess players, it's really hard to say that women have the same chess ability as the men and I absolutely don't want that to come across as sexism, it's just factual.
Brain like squirrels, duh.
That's absolutely not what I'm saying and I don't appreciate the insinuation.
Squirrel spotted
The "people who control sports organizations" only made separate leagues for women because some mens' feelings get hurt when they lose to women.
There's no other point to segregating sports by gender, just straight white cis dudes getting bent out of shape by any challenge to their supposed superiority.
I think you mean sports without a physical activity aspect; and even then, sports like chess don't separate males and females (they offer female-only competitions).
There’s no other point to segregating sports by gender, just straight white cis dudes getting bent out of shape by any challenge to their supposed superiority.
What are you on about? There are two HUGE reasons: safety and fairness:
-
Especially in contact sports, allowing women to play with men is not safe, and would only lead to an environment conducive to women getting injured.
-
There would be zero professional female athletes (excluding sports that only require mental strategy ofc) if there were no separate leagues for women. They wouldn't perform at even close to the same level as the men, AND would be at increased risk of injury.
I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but here are biological factors that make it necessary to separate men and women in order to have fair competition. Female athletes would be infinitely worse off if forced to try to compete in a single league shared with men, because they aren't be able to.
I think you mean sports without a physical activity aspect
No, I do not.
Mens egos are so fragile that women were banned from minor league baseball when Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931.
Figure skating was segregated in 1903 for the same reason, Madge Syers took the silver medal from a man.
The history of womens' sports is rife with examples like this, most sports started out as co-ed and only stayed that way until women started winning.
Figure skating is a perfect example of a performance sport, there isnt any physicality. Also, I think its absolutely ridiculous to claim that Jackie Mitchell striking out an aging Ruth and Gherig in an exhibition match is a woman 'starting to win'.
-
Which sports do the women often beat the men in?
Ultra-endurance sports such as marathons (women show a statistical advantage over men above the 150-mile mark), Figure Skating (Madge Syers beat two men for the silver medal in 1902, women were then banned from competing until the sport was gender-segregated in 1906), Baseball (Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931 and was kicked out of the league a month later), Shooting sports (Zhang Shang took the gold in shotgun skeet in 1992, women were't allowed to compete again until the sport was gender-segregated in 2000, and women average higher scores in the rifle category to this day), etc etc.
Shootings an interesting one. Most people familiar with guns notice women take to shooting accurately more easily and quickly than guys (with rifles, not handguns). I've seen this lots personally. My theory involves lower heart rate and lower muscle mass being conducive.
I dont know what they're on about with Mitchell.
(Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931 and was kicked out of the league a month later)
This lacks SO much context, it was an EXHIBITION match and she never played in the MLB, she played in the minors. Anyone reading that would assume she struck out two greats in a real game and was banned by the MLB.
There's a lot of truth to she shooting thing, that should absolutely be co-ed.
However, my point still stands: women and men should be separated if the sport has a physical component to its competition. (i.e. any sort of contact.)
100% agree with everything you said.
They told us for so long gender isn't sex, and then somehow it was, as far as this sports issue
Because we can debate all-day about what is a man or a women or non-binary and gender roles etc. But I would say debating what is a male or female is much easier and simply comes down to genetics.
Edit: imagine getting down voted for saying XX chromosomes are female and XY is male haha, I guess we're just ignoring the science of genetics now
Nah I think it's because your reply indicates you missed the point.
Possibly, or maybe your comment wasn't well written enough.
Yes, it does require you think about it a little bit