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.

It's not about the effects of performance of testosterone during the competition though .

It's the effects of testosterone on the entire body since early puberty.

That makes a difference, along with the XY.

I don't want to watch artificially weakened males compete against women, frankly. That doesn't seem something to aspire to. I'd like to watch amazing people do the best they can with their natural bodies.

NotTerfNorCis Yes, she produces evidence. I have no idea how good it is. Natural levels make no difference, deliberately changed ones do.

So, yes, I think she thinks suppressing testosterone in trans women reduces their performance. This seems to conflict with her view that trans women shouldn't forced to suppress their testosterone

She also says: "Also, we have evidence, thanks to Dr. Joanna Harper, that when you take someone who has a given level of endogenous natural testosterone, and you reduce that — through such things as like hormone suppression therapy, or the loss of a testicle, or menopause — when you lower someone’s natural testosterone their performance goes down. The body is used to a certain level, and when you drop it, the body performs worse because your body isn’t getting what it’s used to. But that’s also why when you add more exogenous testosterone, your body isn’t used to it so your performance goes up."

miri1985 nice study, thanks!

They are to be legally recognised as women is not the same as actually being women. Whatever way you put it, your continued use of the nonsense word ‘cis’ is incredibly insulting to women. What part of that do you find so difficult to grasp? The word is not a legal definition of women, so why are you more concerned about offending men, than you are, women? Why are you calling women a word that has been IMPOSED on them by trans people, while at the same time being so concerned about THEIR feelings being hurt. Do you not see that by your continuous use of a word that is actually BANNED by MNHQ, because it is deemed offensive by women, you are enforcing the TRAs agenda?

"It's not about the effects of performance of testosterone during the competition though . It's the effects of testosterone on the entire body since early puberty. That makes a difference, along with the XY.*

This is the fundamental point and one which has to be made every time this daft 'debate' happens.

But what's being allowed is people like RM arguing that men's greater physique, etc is down to 'socialisation' (I'm guessing RM means that it's not deemed 'womanly' for woman to bulk up muscle) - when this is just a stupendously ridiculous argument to make. Everyone knows that males develop differently, especially after puberty (though there is considerable evidence that the male advantage is from birth, so all the arguments about TW who take puberty blockers, etc. and who might emerge as athletes in future don't wash with me, either. Not east because their health will be too fucked for them to participate as competitive athletes).

The single point is that men who identify as women benefit from their male bodies and sports have been segregated by sex because there is a chasm of difference between male and female bodies.

But the study linked to by miri1985 (I've only scanned it) in conclusions starts a list on which No 1 justifies men and women competing separate, but ends by stating

Therefore, depending on the levels of arbitrariness one wants to accept, it is justifiable that reassigned M to F compete with other women.

And I know the language is to be inclusive, but I don't like to read 'other women' . I'm of the JHB school of thought that there are Transwomen and women

This is why people are listening to Paula and Martina, because they are not saying "trans women are men," even if they think it

Whatever someone’s opinion as to the right and wrongs, I actually think the OP is right about this. In much the same way as TRAs are alienating moderate people from this cause with this sport thing, so do we risk doing so if we are seen to be calling TW men etc.

This is all so .... it's like cult think. Jesus.

Jane Fae on Twitter:

What is about having a guy body pre transition that is meant to confer such advantage?

twitter.com/JaneFae/status/1103583392782864384

Seriously? You are seriously asking why men are judged to be stronger and faster than women, on average? Does it confuse you that men and women have their own competitions?

I can't believe Fae thinks this is a serious question. This is gaslighting.

What is with all the odd language that gender identity enthusiasts use? What on earth is a "guy body"? They mean a male body, male physique.

A cursory internet search or look in an anatomy textbook will tell you the differences between men and women.

Is it narcissism that makes people like this so divergent from reality?

Whatisthisfuckery 🤣

The definition of women will NOT continue to expand if we fight that.

I for one am not going to stop fighting for reality-based as opposed to faith-based law, policy, and politics.

Men cannot change sex. The law can only be about sex, cause gender identity cannot be proved in any way. It’s like proving the existence of a soul.

The GRA should be repealed. The proposed US Equality Act needs to have the words “gender identity” removed. The IOC must return to reality-based categorization of male and female athletes, and frankly any woman with a Y chromosome activating high testosterone should not be permitted to compete. Many people with physical disorders can’t compete. Sometimes fairness to the group feels cruel to the individual. Children learn this as part of growing up.

Politics, law, and policy based in privileging the subjective over material reality can only end badly. As we see, with a certain privileged subjectivity now engaging the police and courts to enforce the totalitarian dominance of their subjective experience over anyone else’s.

"Gender identity" is a fiction, which everyone else is expected to accept on faith. It's not a thing that can be in any way verified. Unlike biological sex.
Is there any other area in life where we are expected to blindly believe another person's claim as absolute truth, even though there is no way of proving it?
I think not. If that were so there would be no atheists, because we would have to believe, on faith, because the faithful say so, that God exists.
(I am not an atheist but I have never expected anyone to accept my faith just on my word.)

It irritates me no end that people seem to be referring to advantage as a single issue concept rather than acknowledging that the advantages of men are many and varied, in a sporting sense. It makes it so much easier for the "so? some women are unusually tall" style of argument - when actually yes, they might be tall, but they'll still have all (or most) of the other typical characteristics of a female which are less advantageous.

I'm trying to make the dinner and make my point simultaneously and it isn't worded very well but hopefully you'll get the idea.

Also the cis label can eff off.

Whatever someone’s opinion as to the right and wrongs, I actually think the OP is right about this. In much the same way as TRAs are alienating moderate people from this cause with this sport thing, so do we risk doing so if we are seen to be calling TW men etc.

I disagree, the TRAs have had many years of stealthily moving the overton window to the point where people are unthinkingly swallowing absolute unscientific garbage.

It's really important for the future of women and girls that clarity is regained about what the actual definition of a women is - which is adult human female. No man can be one ever, it's just magical thinking.

Accepting that transwomen are a subset of men doesn't take away from any hardship or discrimination they may suffer as a consequence in the same way we understand that gay men are a subset of men and suffer oppression because they sit outside of the box of what society considers masculine behaviour and gendered stereotypes.

Showing kindness, acceptance and having the same basic rights as everyone else should be a no-brainer but pretending that someone can become the opposite sex is hugely damaging to women, children and in the end also anyone who feels themselves to be trans.

And where are all the transmen who are (not)choosing to compete in male sports?? Or is it possible that they are not competing on an equal footing, unlike the transwomen who are competing on a completely equal footing with women? Surely not! It's most strange that there's a hierarchy within the trans population, almost as if it reflects the sexism and misogyny elsewhere on society... I can't be correct in thinking this, surely???

When RM says she is female. I think it's a nonsense in a biological sense, but legally, she is a woman

Not in this country, RM isn't. There are only 3k male people who have the legal fiction of being "female" (and there are exemptions to this so the law is aware they are not) They have had to medically qualify for a gender recognition certificate.

Rachel McKinnon was born male. What the fuck is there to debate ?

Is it narcissism that makes people like this so divergent from reality?

Yes. Duping delight. The more outrageous reversal or claim that they can get accepted, or ideally force on people, the bigger the thrill.

Anyfucker
Spot on as usual
maslinpan
Sarcasm doesn't usually work in the written word but I'm hoping that's your intention

The discussion on radio 4 today right now is exactly what I was attempting to say yesterday (badly)

Excellent discussion on r4.

Thread

Science of sports issue to be discussed on radio 4 now www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3527431-Science-of-sports-issue-to-be-discussed-on-radio-4-now