General Trans thread part 2

[ChiefClerkDrumknott]

Following on from this one General Trans thread
Because I'm not Elsa and can't let it go

Even a quick read of this thread suggest there is a lot of anger. ..
Some examples...

You don't need examples. I told you that we are angry

This "debate" between radical feminism and the trans community is being seen by mainstream as a particularly nasty fight with some issues, risks and fears (on both sides) being deliberately exaggerated.

And who do you think started the fight? I think you'll find some rad fem fears stem from being threatened with death and rape when they bring up objections to some of these 'issues' you glibly dismiss. Do you not think that's an understandable reaction? By the way, have you popped over to Twitter or Tumblr yet to plead with 'TERF' killers to be less aggressive?

As mentioned earlier, I may be completely wrong. Perhaps the best solution is to get even angrier, even more offensive and aggressive...

You know what, as I said we are angry and we are 'aggressive', if you term defending women's rights vocally and loudly and consistently aggressive

OK - i'm happy to agree with the perfectly reasonably position that men and women should not compete against each other in a physical contest. But you see where this will lead, making a stink about how unfair it all is will only serve to reinforce the stereotype that no matter how hard a woman trains or works, she will always be physically inferior to a man. From this very starting point comes patriarchy. "testosterone" seems to be the magic thing at the moment, men have more of it. Who's going to listen to someone say "ah yes, but it doesn't make their brains work any differently, just has an effect of the physical prowess".

Besides, you'll notice that these transwomen are excelling at minority sports, wait until one of them rocks up at Wimbledon. There is already lots of material out there dedicated to the argument that Serena is actually a man.

and fwiw a great many men have been almost beaten to death in the ring by other men, when men fight each other that's what's very likely to happen. Is you position that when women compete, that shouldn't be on the table ?

Women shouldn't be forced to compete against men. The women who fight Fallon Fox don't have a choice if they want to stay in the sport - if they drew FF for a fight and refused to fight then it would count as a forfeit and affect their rankings. If men want to beat each other to death that's fine with me but they shouldn't be allowed to try and beat women to death. A man is much more likely to kill a woman with a punch than another man as men have much thicker skulls. Women have reduced strength as well as weaker skulls so are much less likely to do serious damage to each other.

Well - as i said in the other thread, there is an argument that women want to compete against men. Golf is one example, although at the opposite end of the spectrum from MMA. The trouble is that by letting women choose to compete in the men's event, men get upset because they miss out on the place that is given to the women. Many mediocre male golfers would make a good living on the female tour. But since the opinion that "men are better than woman at sport" has almost been universally stated here, a woman who dominates her own sport will never get the satisfaction of being the best of the best. I don't know what the answer is but stressing how much men are better than women and how unfair it all is, doesn't seem like it.

Saying that men are in general stronger than women is a statement of biological fact. It's not really fair or unfair, just how it is. There are physical differences between the sexes. Some are quite striking, for example in the States 14% of men are over 6 foot, compared to 5% of women over 5'9" (different data sets there though).

A woman who is at the top of her sporting game may want to take on men, and do from time to time in exhibition matches. I doubt very much that in most sports she would be able to beat the top man however good she is. Of course some of that might be to do with the comparatively less money, training etc that go into women's sports.

There may well be some sports where weight categories and other mechanisms could work instead of the simple male/female split, and some where women's different physiques could give them an advantage, however if you go with a male/female divide then allowing some males to jump over it is of course problematic.

I wonder if this will all burn itself out eventually. Especially when children take the piss - I think snarlgender is my favourite, is that what I am in the morning?

Snarlgender, isn't that a Pokémon?

But you see where this will lead, making a stink about how unfair it all is will only serve to reinforce the stereotype that no matter how hard a woman trains or works, she will always be physically inferior to a man.

Firstly, you can't disregard the different upbringings most girls and most boys have. Boys are generally pushed towards doing more physical stuff. I've read on here a few times about girls not being allowed on the 'boy's football field' at primary school - it was an unwritten rule at mine too. Then at professional level, men's sport gets taken a lot more seriously than woman's; a lot more money gets pumped into it. In football for example, this allows men on the whole to put more time into training than women at the top level who will need to work other jobs.

Next, yes there are physical differences between men and women. I don't think you'll find (m)any feminists denying this. Bone density, height, weight. A normal woman could train and become much better at something than a normal man, but if both train, the man generally will be coming from point of physical advantage and will be stronger than the woman.

I agree with what is being said - men are generally physically stronger and bigger, that's how it is. There are very few women who could take on a man and beat them due to biology, which brings us back to the very reasons women are oppressed and the reasons we are arguing for female only spaces. I do think someone like Serena Williams could take on male players and win, because she is insanely talented and physically strong, but she is an exception to the rule. I also find it very ironic that for years the Williams sisters (particularly Serena) have had to endure jibes about them really being men because they're not delicate flowers but strong athletes, and now men are being allowed to compete against women and that's all great and progressive There is of course a racist element to the comparisons for the sisters, too

There may well be some sports where weight categories and other mechanisms could work instead of the simple male/female split, and some where women's different physiques could give them an advantage, however if you go with a male/female divide then allowing some males to jump over it is of course problematic.

AFAIK the only sports (certainly the only Olympic sports) where men and women compete on equal terms are the various equestrian sports because greater physical strength and size don't necessarily hand you an advantage. The world's top riders are fairly evenly split male/female. But that's because you have an extra element there compared to any other sport, that is the horse, and being male doesn't necessarily give you a physical advantage. I don't see how many other sports can do this if it's just one on one.

I also find it interesting that, as women's sports are becoming more popular, suddenly the trans element is being introduced. Coincidence?

Just had another random 💡 moment

To edge away from the physical puberty differences of transwomen vs actual women that are obvious to us but transphobic to the rest of the fruit-loop world!! Say a transman gets to olympic level something and wins a gold. Every single male will be thinking they are only there because of the testosterone, and they pretty much will be. Even if they did happen to win it based on merit, there would be no way to prove that and still score in the appropriate hormone limits. They will have won a gold medal based entirely on injecting a substance that every single other athlete is banned from touching. I'm sure that will go down like a lead balloon.

In a sport like golf, clearly differences of physicality are less material than in a sport like 100m racing.

So yes, you have to be strong enough to hit a golf ball a hundred metres or whatever, but otherwise it's placement, accuracy and consistency that matter most.

Saw a woman competing in a typically blokey darts match on TV (with women in tight dresses escorting the players to the board etc) - another sport where physicality makes little difference.

Is there a reason why women don't compete against men in sports where strength and size isn't so much of an issue, other than them being traditionally split? I know nothing about golf or darts so please forgive my ignorance

Good point re testosterone injections for trans men competing in men's sports. Why do I get the feeling that if men object to this their concerns will be listened to, whereas if women object (if they dare) their concerns will be rejected?

A middle aged late transitioning MTT and former police officer started playing in the women's golf circuit and immediately became the women's long drive champion. Google Lana Lawless.

Flora - so should women be allowed to compete in the "men's" golf tour ? Many of them want to and have.

I dont really want to get involved in this whole trans issue, however what I would like to offer up as my opinion is that the "R" in terf actually represents the mainstream opinion. A "manly" looking transgender athlete will never be accepted as e.g. the "greatest women tennis player of all time".

agh - what i mean is that it is not actually a radical position at all, it's mainstream.

itll women competing in the men's tour would cause little disruption but I don't massively care.

I am beyond the stage of thinking something will never happen when it comes to trans rights. We already have articles praising "gender non-conforming transwomen" (i.e. who have beards or look like men) for their "bravery".

Itll, I agree that the TERF descriptor is a nice straw man for some transactivists.

I think the term first arose when trans women were asked not to attend certain sessions at a feminist conference and were thereby "excluded by Radfems" - it now seems, by some, to apply to anyone who doesn't believe that a "female penis" is a thing, etc. Which as you say, is probably a mainstream view!

Chief, training and sponsorship is part of it. A female snooker player, for example, is unlikely to get the best coach, the early local support etc, and if she competes in women's tournaments at first, the prize money is significantly lower.

It's not just height though. It's broadness of the back/shoulders, length of limbs, muscle to fat ratios. None of this is going to be changed by changing testosterone levels. In addition it isn't unheard of for women to naturally have those levels of testosterone in their blood.

Testosterone doesn't cover the whole picture.

Except there we run into a problem, as they're not gonna be up to the male standards! I'm not sure standards is the right word here as it implies that women will never have the credibility of men because they aren't as fast or strong as men. I know that's not you meant though!

Sorry for some reason I didn't see most of the posts today and my post was addressing Mide's point about testosterone unlikely to change height!

As well as coaching and support for these mainly men dominated sports there is the problem of competition and profile too. More numbers generally mean better competition. More females figures at the top of a sport encourages more women to join the sport. It is as self perpetuating wheel.

That doesn't surprise me TheWoman
So socio-economic reasons aside, there's no reason physically why women shouldn't be able to play against men in some sports? But historically they were split and the women's game is seen as lesser?

I compete in equestrian sports so I don't have to worry about the sex of the people I'm competing against I'm rubbish anyway and interestingly there really doesn't seem to be a bias towards one sex or the other in terms if sponsorship etc. Although showjumping at top level does seem to be slightly more skewed towards men than women, for some reason.
I am, however, outraged by the inclusion of trans women in other female sports

Chief, I don't know and I doubt the studies have been done, TBH. I thought golf might be one but someone mentioned a trans woman winning the long drive record.

Even in snooker, whilst strength isn't an issue, height and reach are to make the tricky shots.

Then, apart from the physical advantages from muscle mass/bone structure, think of something like hurdles. Now i'm a tall women so always did brilliantly at hurdles, but imagine how well Missy Sparklepants will do, towering above her opponants at 6'7!!

I was just coming on to say that women are disadvantaged by their height in snooker but was beaten to it! I'm fairly crap at snooker which isn't helped by being 5'4" and needing the rest for far more shots than any man I've played with. I also found that my boobs got in the way a fair bit, again resulting in needing the rest more. I was fairly obsessed with snooker as a young teenager and maybe I'd have gotten good at it if it weren't for my physical disadvantages and the fact that snooker halls weren't a welcoming place for young women.