McKinnon's Position

[SportsForWomen]

I want to pick apart McKinnon's arguments for inclusion.

My own position is that even if transwomen are women in some way, and even if they are all sincere, allowing them to participate in women's sports undermines the whole point of the category.

I summarise McKinnon's argument for transwomen's participation in women's sport. She studiously avoids clarity.

Super short form:
Her end goal: the only eligibilty for participating in women's sports should be an answer "Yes" to the question, "are you a woman"?

Short form.
Transwomen are women, therefore they should be able to compete in women's sports.
There is no evidence that transwomen are better than other women at sports.
Even if there were, transwomen should be able to compete because human rights.

Long form:

1. Women's sports exists. She won't address why, in part because I think it would undermine her entire argument.
2. Transwomen are women, so they should be able to compete in women's sports.
3. The IOC sets the rules, transwomen are obeying the rules, so trans women are not cheating.
4. Individual jurisdictions determine who is a woman, and the IOC accepts that. So if a country has self-id, then a person who ids as a women should be able to compete.
5. Although the averages for men in strength, height, etc are higher, there are bell curves which cross over. (I don't get this one).
6. There appears to be no correlation between natural testosterone levels and peformance. However, she avoids the question of the influence testosterone has on the male body during puberty. She digs into testerone levels of male and female atheletes while studiously avoiding performance bell curves. Her goal here is to establish that lowering endogenous testoterone levels in transwomen by setting a limit is ineffective "no endogenous testosterone policy will be necessary or effective at promoting fairness in (women’s) sport."
7. We have no evidence at all that the average trans woman is any bigger, stronger, faster than the average cisgender woman. [This is hardly a surprise - no one has ever tested it. It's a startling claim, because if there were evdience it's not even vaguely plausible that there would be no difference.]
8. Based on their performance, their doesn't appear to be a particular advantage to being trans after many years of competing.
9. Now it gets interesting. Even if there is a competitive advantage, it's no different from other competive advantages (ie most atheletes at the top have a genetic advantage) "The question is not whether there is a competitive advantage, the question is whether there is an unfair advantage. "
10. So, even if transwomen have an advantage they should be allowed to compete.
11. Participation in sports is a human rights issue which transcends competitiveness.

10. She uses intersex people as a Trojan horse for trans women - her paper does not use a trans women as an example.

If females were brought up to identify with rough and tumble, train sets, power games, dressed in drab colours, not given make up, had their hair cut regularly at cost price and gave the general attitude of being powerful because they had a clitoris, what would be the real gender dysphoria then?

Oh wait. Biology!

Bloody hell Nicky Spinks! Hadn't hear of her till now! What an achievement

Thanks for that breakdown, SportsForWomen. Science is not my thing, so I hadn't read McKinnon's document. I did wonder if it contained convincing scientific arguments, as the TRAs are claiming. It seems not.

We have no evidence at all that the average trans woman is any bigger, stronger, faster than the average cisgender woman.

I'm guessing men don't shrink when they take hormone treatment. Men are on average taller than women. Is there any evidence to suggest men who go on to identify as women are on average shorter than the average man? McKinnon needs to produce this kind of evidence if McKinnon is to be taken seriously.

This argument that 'if transwomen have an advantage, well sport isn't fair' might as well be applied to 'if men have an advantage, well sport isn't fair'. It could be a justification for ending all sex segregation in sports.

I've often thought that placemats.

How can I phrase this without irritating you or implying trans women are not women? Ideally, the language shouldn't speak to that.

If you believe that transwomen are women, why are you even questioning permitting them to enter women’s sports.

Try using the correct terminology and stop worrying more about the hurty feelings of men.

Novel I know, but you could try transwomen and women. I’m a woman, not a cis woman and I find the terminology extremely offensive. They can call themselves what they like, but for a group that screams loudly about misgendering, they sure do like forcing labels on actual women.

From McKinnon's timeline today:

FaceNetflix: Orchestra is not a competitive sport where your biological make up gives you an advantage.

McKinnon: He...he knows that people have to COMPETE for spots on orchestras, right?

Reading McKinnon makes me cringe! That affectation with the ellipses, as though McKinnon is so shocked, McKinnon is stumbling over McKinnon's words. Then the monumental stupidity of the comment itself. People compete for jobs, does that mean all jobs are inherently competitive? Is McKinnon missing the point that once you're on an orchestra, it's not a competition like sports? Or that male biology wouldn't be an advantage at any stage? How did this person get a PhD?

Mck used an argument that they had set up a trans cycling club and that they were the only TW who had been able to compete competitively.

The thing is, male and female athletes represent the top physique of their sex.

I doubt any of the TW in a cycling club of TW could have competed at competitive levels as men or women; one or two might compete and win against women.

None would attempt to compete against competitive men as a) they'd loose and b) wrong "identity."

The average male in the general population (like my DH, not massively fit) could easily compete against the top level of females in sport with comparative training.

But RM thinks this is proof they're on a level playing field.

Interesting to analyse this, but I have to say that I find the creep of 'cis' very upsetting. Women shouldn't be relegated to a subcategory of their own sex.
Mck's PhD thesis shows exactly how much McK's 'science' is to be trusted. I think McK is given way too much attention, esp by the BBC.
Nevertheless, it's now got to the stage where it's good to pin it down. Mck loves a good waffle.

I did wonder if it contained convincing scientific arguments, as the TRAs are claiming. It seems not.

Definitely not. McKinnon is fixated on testosterone, particularly endogenous testosterone - i.e that which is created by the body. McKinnon points out that there is no link to levels of this testosterone in the body and sporting ability.

To me this is an argument for a blanket ban of all male born people in women's sports. Lowering testosterone makes no difference and female athletes will still be at a disadvantage. McKinnon thinks differently. As endogenous testosterone has no impact on sporting ability there should be no barriers to transwomen participating in women's sports at all, they should be free to move in to the female category at will. There is a tacit admission male physiology would bring about a competative advantage but then this is waved away by suggesting it's just the same as having access to state of the art training equipment.

I don’t ever post on here but I heard her interview on the radio this morning and thought it was a massive own goal: her arguments were illogical and incomplete and nonsensical- I can’t believe they can in any way have benefitted her cause.

It sounds like McKinnon's argument is based purely on there not having been any empirical research into the comparative performance of transwomen and women. You can cite common sense all you want, or compare men and women, but there is no proof that transwomen are faster/stronger/taller than women. There is also, of course, no proof that they are not. It would be very easy for a sporting body to look into this. McKinnon knows what the outcome would be, I suspect, which is why McKinnon has the fallback 'moral' argument that transwomen are just a type of women.

I’m surprised atMcKinnon courting so much attention, given they McK teaches at a college in SOUTH CAROLINA, which is probably the state most populated with Christian fundamentalists, who’ve long had a nationwide project to move there and take over the state.

American colleges work very hard to maintain good relationships with their surrounding communities. I’m trying and failing to imagine a South Carolina community approving of or even simply ignoring a college professor encouraging children to run away from their parents. Even if McK has tenure, certain actions can break that guarantee.

Do not ask for whom the ban hammer slams, because it just might slam for thee. It seems a UK doctor is discovering that; an American philosophy professor might soon discover that too.

Ribosomes wrote - "If RmK doesn't think there is any difference, why doesn't she take part in the men's category"

McKinnon seems to be one of the subset of transactivists who believe that transwomen are female from birth but have been wrongly assigned to the male sex (source: interview on BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme on 6 March 2019). McKinnon seems to believe that McKinnon was never male.

My understanding is that RmK doesn't believe in male and female brains. Given that they were physiologically male at birth, what part of them IS female? Feelings?

If so I feel like being the queen. Curtsy and give me the dosh.

The fact nay thing that makes McK or any TW female is their say-so.

That’s it.

And we all must heed their say-so. Because they say so.

That’s it.

I said before that it’s toddler-thinking. Why in hell are people bowing down to it?

The word you use with toddlers is, No.

Aargh IPad. The only thing that makes McK.....

If you believe that transwomen are women, why are you even questioning permitting them to enter women’s sports.

It's their biology - their sex - which means they should not compete in women's sports. It's quite simply unfair. There is no point in having a category for women if trans women can compete. What RM wants is to have her cake and eat it. The logical conclusion of her position is that there should be no women's category at all, and that's why she won't address the purpose of their being a women's category, because she'd have to compete against people who would beat her.

There are a category of people who, whether I like it or not, are legally but not biologically, women. I don't "believe" it - it's a fact. The scope of what constitutes a woman, legally and culturally, is expanding, and will continue to expand, unfortunately. So to protect biological women, we need to fight for our sex category in all arenas. This is why people are listening to Paula and Martina, because they are not saying "trans women are men," even if they think it.

When RM says she is female. I think it's a nonsense in a biological sense, but legally, she is a woman and before that, legally, she was a man. Likewise, trans men are legally men. By saying ciswomen, I am talking about that category of people who are both legally and biologically female. I don't know another word for that which doesn't exclude other people who are legally women or offend you.

If there is no advantage after having had testosterone, why is it banned?

The more I think about 'transwomen are women', the more nonsensical it seems. HOW are they women? I know they are legally, but it's a fiction isn't it?

I now know someone who is transitioning. The artifice is there to see. Fake breasts, stereotypically women's clothing, handbag, hairstyle and make-up on someone who is obviously male, having to learn female mannerisms, to change the voice.. it's pretending to be something they're not. It's so bizarre.

OP how about “Women” and “trans women”.

There’s also “natal women” or “women-born-women” (WBW).

I personally don’t like “cis” because it’s essentially defined by comfort with a female gender identity - and I don’t believe everyone has a “gender identity”.

Hope that helps. I don't need to be distinguished from trans women who are born male.

It would help to stop calling them trans women, as if they are just another subset of women, such as tall women, short women, etc. The space makes a different. Call them transwomen; then we have the two categories, transwomen and women. Simple.

Terminology counts, language counts. We really have to stop using the term ciswomen, as if we are just another sort of women. We aren't. We are adult human females and we don't need any prefix.

sackrifice RM's argument is that testosterone injections improve performance, but that natural low or high levels of testosterone don't affect performance. I have no idea if it's true or not, but it doesn't really help her argument.

NotTerf, yes exactly. The word that comes to mind for me though is WHY?

What is the benefit, societally, for prioritizing gender identity over sex?

I can think of plenty of downsides, sport, erosion of women’s boundaries, dehumanization of female biology, entrenchment of gender stereotypes, loss of political power for women, exclusion of many women from public life, it goes on...

So WHY?

The positive is “inclusivity”. Trans women will experience a feeling of validation if others refer to them as female, even if they can clearly see they are not. Inclusivity is taken to be an absolute moral good that trumps all other moral goods.

So again, WHY? Why is this helpful, all sides considered? Will trans women’s validation help them actually be more accepted? I think not - transphobic men who enforce gender norms through violence will continue to do so.

SportForWomen doesn't McKinnon produce any evidence in their document that supports the idea that natural testosterone doesn't affect performance? What about the connection between testosterone and muscle growth? Don't transwomen say they become physically weaker when their testosterone drops?

5. We have no evidence at all that the average trans woman is any bigger, stronger, faster than the average cisgender woman. [This is hardly a surprise - no one has ever tested it. It's a startling claim, because if there were evdience it's not even vaguely plausible that there would be no difference.]

They haven't done that study but they have done a study which shows that the thigh muscles of trans women on estrogen and compared it to pretreatment trans men after 3 years the male to female mean muscle area remained significantly greater than that observed in the female to male comparison group.
There was a decline in the mean thigh muscle area but it didn't bring it anywhere near to the pre treatment trans men, the trans men and women were close after the trans men had a year of testosterone and a year of testosterone suppression for the trans women

They also compare them before treatment so you can see the differences in their mean heights (over 10cm), weights etc.

eje.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/eje/151/4/425.xml