How do the people who believe gender is more important than sex think about the sport issue?

[PermanentTemporary]

I'm not going to ask posters in good faith to expose themselves on here (though if you do, thank you) and the classroom monitors never post on the sport threads. But anyone who understands the pro gender argument on sport?

I've seen some arguments that I do agree with. It is absolutely true that women's sport has historically been 'lesser' or not existed for sexist reasons - Victorian arguments that women shouldn't do sport at all because it might affect their fertility, or their health, or that it would mean exposing their bodies. And sexist arguments that women's sport has no value because women aren't as strong as men. And the issue that Title IX was meant to fix in the US, that women's sport wasn't funded properly because men weren't interested. And the fact that there are sporting events where women have won overall - ultrarunning for example, or that category of shooting which was unisex until a woman won the Olympic title, and the sexes were immediately separated after that.

I will accept all those, and believe that the only solution is probably open categories, with gatekept XX categories which include certain DSDs on a specific basis (probably only women with Swyer syndrome and CAIS would qualify).

I find it incredible that anyone can genuinely and convincingly defend the current mess in sport. The aim at present seems to be to pretend that the current situation is how it's been for a long time, and no changes can be made without more evidence, while shouting down any efforts to provide such evidence by eg keeping records of people's sex.

I suppose the big change came in 2003 and for a huge number of competitive sportspeople, that's before they were born, or when they were tiny.

Wow @Helleofabore he's not too bright is he. I am really quite bored of men assuming the conversation only started when they noticed it.

@bishophaha

Main thing I take away from it is that many people aren't very good at logical reasoning.

They know how to semi-intellectually justify a position, but they don't know how to interrogate it for coherence. Or they just don't want to.

I think your last sentence has it. For most politically aware, vaguely bright and thoughtful people, if you were asked a simple question (eg "what is a woman") that you couldn't immediately answer, or something was stopping you from being able to answer, you might forget about it after one or two times but surely once you'd deliberately ignored it for the third/ fourth/fiftieth time something would start pinging in your brain: you're not quite sure what you think on this - why is that?

For me there would be a desire to grapple with it, even if it's to conclude that you don't know, or to narrow down in the bit you think is fuzzy or problematic.

But clearly, ppl are making a deliberate decision to not think about it too hard yet simultaneously proclaim that their statements are the correct views.

I think this is fairly accurate. I also think, as someone who has been involved in education quite a bit over the past 12 years or so, that it is in large part related to the way schools are now operating.

To a large degree, students are not being taught how to interrogate themselves in the way you describe. They are being taught to accept a series of dogmatic truths related to social theory, and these are unquestionable. Tolerance, anti-racism, equality of outcome, etc. And because these are the central good things it's seen as inherently wrong to interrogate them. History is taught, often topically rather than chronologically, and from a very specific viewpoint - students can't interrogate that viewpoint because they aren't given enough information they don't realize there is a viewpoint. Even children's picture books are highly didactic and message based.

This is why so many students come to university and are shocked and disturbed to find their certainties questioned.

I would also say, education in the UK seems to be considerably more robust, still, than that in North America, where large numbers of students are increasingly illiterate. I have wondered if that doesn't factor into the different trajectory on these issues in NA vs the UK.

I think Permanent he was steadfastly in the "I am going to be kind" fence sitting position. Unfortunately for him, he can no longer claim to be ignorant of the situations as he could previously.

I'm sure but he still seems to be saying 'we need to learn' rather than acknowdging those who already have.

Also he picked up immediately on the 'protection' angle. I know that as a young competitive sportswoman I would have bristled at the idea that my events were there because I was being 'protected' and hell ve able to find athletes who will speak out against that idea. Even though, factually, it's true.

I do think that that it's worth realizing that this disbelief that male and female competitors are different is not coming out of nowhere.

Back in the late 80s and 90s there was a lot of pushing the idea in progressive circles that of course women and men were not different in that way.

So you get that film where Demi Moore joins the navy SEALS. Or the film Girlfight where a female boxer beats her boyfriend in a boxing match - we are meant to see that he is a really good guy because he respects her enough to go up against her. Even now, it's a joke in some movie buff circles that you always have to have these "girl power" roles where they demonstrate to us that the female characters can of course hold their own in direct combat with males - Brianne of Tarth or Boba Fett or whatever need to be set against opposite sex warriors so the female can be shown to be completely equal.

Even in real life at that time there was a lot of discussion of women in roles like firefighting or the combat arms, and those who argued that women were rare in those jobs in part because of their physicality were deemed sexists. Even people like Julie Bindle seem to somewhat prop up that narrative at times.

A lot of people are very shocked to learn that a women's Olympic hockey team will often lose to high school boys teams. They just can't believe it.

I agree about that narrative MangyInseam though do think there's a huge difference between a job role where you set a standard and anyone who can reach it is good enough,.and a sport competition.

Of course there were men who complained about the standards being made easier to allow women to reach them and it is true that at the time I would have seen those men as sexist dinosaurs (not 100%: I had a brother so was aware of real physical differences). I don't know how high those standards needed to be.

I think the argument I tend to hear from trans allies is that it would be unfair if they couldn't compete in sports, even the Olympics, and because they have been constantly brainwashed into saying that TWAW, then there is no chance that they would think that it should then be in any other category than with the women. They have been told repeatedly about how difficult a time TW have, and I think here is where the association with gay rights has made a massive impact, they are terrified of treating them in such an awful way because surely we've learned from history now. I think that seems to be what it comes down to with the people I know - it really is a desire to do the right thing, to not be bigots the way people in the past might have been towards gay people, and they do not see that there isn't really a parallel between the two. It's been established in their mind, and anyone who is even hinting at the fact that they aren't the same thing must also be a bigot, homphobic, transphobic, all of it. They are too afraid of being unkind that they can't really listen to any arguments. And I can understand why; I don't want them to think of me as a bigot either, so I tend to not keep commenting on anything because I know they won't agree and will think of me as bigoted, which bothers me, so I don't speak up when I should. And in both cases, this fear of being bigoted or unkind ends up making discussion difficult and truth obscure.

Another thing - the difference between real people being perceived as victims, and hypothetical victims makes a difference. The people I talked to could see that the TW would be hurt, upset, treated unfairly in their view, etc by not being allowed to compete, and that is a clear victim that they can see and know about (and the TW will make sure of that!). The hypothetical victims of letting TW compete, the women who don't get in, the women who come lower down, the women and girls who are put off competing entirely, are much less obvious (sometimes the 2nd to 4th place winners are noticed, but not always). Many of the other vicitms and just hypothetical - we don't always know who would have got in otherwise, who would have won had the race been different, who would have got personal bests, funding, recognition, encouragement to continue, etc - they are not always named people that we can know, but just hypothetical 'women who might have done something had things been different', and that's a lot harder for people to feel sorry for and worry about, compared to a real life person telling you their sad story to your face. So I think combined with that fear of being accidentally bigoted, it makes people believe that TW are the victims and that they do need somewhere to compete, and of course that should be the women's category.

Even now, it's a joke in some movie buff circles that you always have to have these "girl power" roles where they demonstrate to us that the female characters can of course hold their own in direct combat with males - Brianne of Tarth or Boba Fett or whatever need to be set against opposite sex warriors so the female can be shown to be completely equal.

In video games where you can play male or female characters (or RPG stuff like D&D), I do occasionally wonder how much outrage there would be if male and female characters ever got different stats in any way.

I think equal stats for sexes is compulsory in games. Which means they kind of are genders, rather than sexes, as they have no physical impact.

Oh that's really interesting @NecessaryScene - the sexes really aren't allowed to have any differences that could be related to sex? I didn't know that.

@NotBadConsidering

It’s also likely to become evident that the only way Russia has managed to get a small group of females to do quads repeatedly is to systematically dope them with agents that increase their strength and stamina.

The other crucial point is they are doing quads with a prepubescent body - i.e. one more akin to a male's than grown woman's with narrow hips, less body fat etc. Post-puberty they simply cannot execute them any more.

the sexes really aren't allowed to have any differences that could be related to sex?

I've played a lot of games and I can't think of a single example. Classes with strengths and weaknesses, but not sexes.

It makes sense from a game construction perspective though - you want to offer people the chance to play male or female avatars. But if female avatars were less strong, what would the trade-off be?

Classes usually have strengths and weaknesses that balance, but what pro would you give a female to balance the con of less physical strength? While still being realistic? As you know, we struggle to identify physical activities that women could beat men at. (Not gymnastics, contrary to popular though. Endurance events?)

Or would it just be hard mode?

If anyone can think of any examples where sex matters physically in games, please offer them...

Based on that thread about the Metaverse, 'the chance for your avatar to get sexually assaulted unless wearing a head covering'?

Defining what is really necessary for physically demanding jobs is quite tricky I think.

I remember when I was in the army and they changed the way they were testing for fitness. Rather than an abstract test with sit-ups or a beep test it became practical - a march, moving sandbags, shoveling gravel, that kind of thing, with a single standard. It was certainly more challenging for women than men. Very few women can effectively do a fireman's carry of an adult male who is lying on the ground.

There have also been challenges in law in many places around whether it is ok to recognize reproductive role - questions like, is it discriminatory to say that a same sex couple could not be listed as parents on a birth certificate, even though we all realize that it is a legal fiction. That kind of question has also tended to create a climate where people feel that acknowledging sex is somehow wrong and even bigoted. It may not be defensible if you get into the nitty gritty, but most people don't - they just feel that somehow it's not right to think that way.

I agree, MangyInseam. One of the more recent changes in one army fitness testing procedure has shown once again that gender-neutral is rarely if ever to our benefit.

They went from separate male and female standards (lots of grumbling from men about making it easier for women, and from women how they are not being treated as equals) to a new gender-neutral standard which averaged out the male and female standards.

Now it's harder for women and easier for men. But that is not good for the standard the army actually requires, because there was a reason the standards for men were higher in the first place.

But it is, as you say, tricky to solve this problem. If women are going to serve or work alongside men in the exact same position, then I believe they must meet the standard necessary to do that particular job. And if part of that job is to be able to fireman-lift a fellow soldier out of the line of fire, then that is the standard that must be met by both sexes.

However, that requires acceptance of the advantages of male physiology on a matter of profound social significance in a way that goes against decades of feminist argument. Even I find it hard to accept the consequences - fewer women will qualify, leaving a number of fields to be dominated by men by default.

But maybe if we achieve more equality in other areas, we will in the future be more accepting of such natural consequences of sex differences?

@NecessaryScene - Im not a gamer
But you have sparked a query about whether avatars (male and female since they have to be the same) in games have any strenghts associated with women. This sounds daft but i am guessing being strong and fast are the main traits for games and these are associated with men. Do any games buikd in aspects like the need to be dexterous or have better fat reserves last longer, or better immune systems, or hormones to protect the heart, or ability to deal with pain better.

@CharlieParley

I agree, MangyInseam. One of the more recent changes in one army fitness testing procedure has shown once again that gender-neutral is rarely if ever to our benefit.

They went from separate male and female standards (lots of grumbling from men about making it easier for women, and from women how they are not being treated as equals) to a new gender-neutral standard which averaged out the male and female standards.

Now it's harder for women and easier for men. But that is not good for the standard the army actually requires, because there was a reason the standards for men were higher in the first place.

But it is, as you say, tricky to solve this problem. If women are going to serve or work alongside men in the exact same position, then I believe they must meet the standard necessary to do that particular job. And if part of that job is to be able to fireman-lift a fellow soldier out of the line of fire, then that is the standard that must be met by both sexes.

However, that requires acceptance of the advantages of male physiology on a matter of profound social significance in a way that goes against decades of feminist argument. Even I find it hard to accept the consequences - fewer women will qualify, leaving a number of fields to be dominated by men by default.

But maybe if we achieve more equality in other areas, we will in the future be more accepting of such natural consequences of sex differences?

Ultimately I think accepting it is the only way forward. Trying to change reality, or act as if it is changed regardless, only causes problems further down the line.

I do think it's been a weakness within feminism that it's been unwilling to accept equality of outcome as a matter of principle. It leads to situations where underlying realities are not addressed and that has all kinds of consequences.

[quote Onionpatch]@NecessaryScene - Im not a gamer
But you have sparked a query about whether avatars (male and female since they have to be the same) in games have any strenghts associated with women. This sounds daft but i am guessing being strong and fast are the main traits for games and these are associated with men. Do any games buikd in aspects like the need to be dexterous or have better fat reserves last longer, or better immune systems, or hormones to protect the heart, or ability to deal with pain better.[/quote]
Rimworld. It has a large number of traits related to body, mind and psyche. I think Oxygen not provided may also have immune system related advantages as traits.

Classes usually have strengths and weaknesses that balance, but what pro would you give a female to balance the con of less physical strength? While still being realistic? As you know, we struggle to identify physical activities that women could beat men at. (Not gymnastics, contrary to popular though. Endurance events?)

The ability to spawn?

@AuxArmesCitoyens

I have seen it argued that we should be reframing sport to make it about participating and not winning.

Yep I’ve seen this. They never seem interested in boycotting millionaires clubs like football, F1 and motor sport, basketball etc. It’s only ever about ‘participating’ in terms of making women’s sport more inclusive, amateur and meaningless.

I think it's mostly other women supporting it.

From what I've noticed of these women, they tune into the "under dog" (probably due to being women and experiencing various types of sexism) and see these males as the under dog.

Experiencing a version of perceived sexism and "oppression." These women have so much empathy that they become blind to anything else.

There are few "normal" men who support this. Only the vehement TRAs eg OJ. (I've never seen him talk about sport though?)

If inclusion is a human right, why do we have separate para Olympics in sport?

I know the argument would be that 'women aren't disabled men,' except there's biological reasons why we have separate sexed categories.

People parroting "inclusion" really don't know what they're actually talking about.

Treating people equally does not mean treating them the same.

@MangyInseam

I do think that that it's worth realizing that this disbelief that male and female competitors are different is not coming out of nowhere.

Back in the late 80s and 90s there was a lot of pushing the idea in progressive circles that of course women and men were not different in that way.

So you get that film where Demi Moore joins the navy SEALS. Or the film Girlfight where a female boxer beats her boyfriend in a boxing match - we are meant to see that he is a really good guy because he respects her enough to go up against her. Even now, it's a joke in some movie buff circles that you always have to have these "girl power" roles where they demonstrate to us that the female characters can of course hold their own in direct combat with males - Brianne of Tarth or Boba Fett or whatever need to be set against opposite sex warriors so the female can be shown to be completely equal.

Even in real life at that time there was a lot of discussion of women in roles like firefighting or the combat arms, and those who argued that women were rare in those jobs in part because of their physicality were deemed sexists. Even people like Julie Bindle seem to somewhat prop up that narrative at times.

A lot of people are very shocked to learn that a women's Olympic hockey team will often lose to high school boys teams. They just can't believe it.

Yes I do think a lot of us were led to believe this.

I remember growing up being encouraged to think I was completely equal to males (by society) but a miss match then to the real world where I knew I could be assaulted and definitely wasn't as capable physically to male peers in sports. Which I sort of pushed to the back if my mind.

In terms of careers it's the same until you decide to have children and then lots of things are revealed to you.

A friend who's daughter is old enough to have lots of career talks pointed out they never include discussion of what might happen to your career when you have children, to both sexes.

One of my favourite critiques of "inclusion" is Coach Blade, here, saying that it seems like the people she was talking to were just saying it over and over like a religious mantra, and she couldn't get them to engage their brain enough to understand what they were effectively saying.

She was approaching it as a logical argument, but to them it was just a recital.

Link should take you to 46:28.

I think people don’t realise that this issue isn’t just about elite sportswomen. I did some secondary school in a co-ed school and some in a girls’ only school. I am NOT a sportswoman and never will be. But PE was much more fun in the girls’ only school. The boys not being there to physically dominate the games meant all the girls could play and have their actions actually make a difference to the outcome of the game. I also played a little bit of football as a teen in an all girls inter-school competition. We were a terrible team. Seriously bad. But it was fun and good for us to play anyway. Only having the option of mixed-sex teams would have meant I never played at all.

According to some TRAs, it’s just like including women with VSDs (though they almost always use the term “Intersex”). Then they reference Caster Semenya - as a “cis woman”. Want to guess what the next step is? If you guessed [along the lines of] “Trying to exclude trans women from [women’s] sport is the same as racism!!!!!!!”

That last - Olympic-standard, surely - leap is brought to you by the well-publicised cases of black athletes with VSDs who[se supporters] are manufacturing outrage over their having to reduce their testosterone levels to continue to be allowed to compete as woman despite being male. Lots of White Saviouring over how these poor women couldn’t possibly have ever suspected they have a VSD because they’re from Africa & thus until they got to the Olympics had never seen things like electricity, properly surfaced roads, doctors of Western medicine etc. That “all Africans live in mud huts” trope is so WILDLY blatantly breathtakingly overtly racist you might miss some of the heinous bonus racism around “Are you saying Caster Semenya looks like a man you ignorant racist? Do ALL these women look like men to you?!” [with either accompanying photo or list of assorted famous black women]. Photoset or list generally featuring Michelle Obama, just to compound the problematic, presumably 🤦🏻‍♀️ Returning, however, to the utter nonsense of “ZOMG stop bullying these poor BIPOC cis-women who had no idea about any of this”: a 2-second Google shows that certainly Caster, who wore the boys’ uniform at school, uses male pronouns, & is legally married in a country where homosexuality is illegal was NOT suddenly shocked by the news he is genetically male; nor does he identify otherwise. It’s also known that there are some unscrupulous coaches who specifically seek out athletic children whose VSD diagnoses would be an advantage, with a view to their competing nationally & internationally.

Endlessly asked not to bring VSDs into it, but still TRAs use them as a way to prop up their “arguments”. Equally, the requests to stop comparing black women to men who “identify as” women because it is sickeningly racist are ignored. I’m not sure what’s so complex about the idea you can’t just throw up #BLM in your social bios & make The Right Noises about “supporting queer BIPOC creators/businesses” & educating yourself & you’ll then be covered in a magical shield that proves you are One Of The Good Ones & not at all never-ever even a little bit racist. Ever at all. Because you’re “woke”. And naturally there’s nothing at all problematic in SJWs having just waltzed off with that word, same as it’s not inappropriate &/or appropriative for them to do the same with “rest in power”. SJWs aren’t truly “woke”, either, in the true sense: being alert to injustice =/= going looking for offence. Part of the reason you need to be woke is to be able to protect your community: as is often discussed, TRAs talk up all the dreadful threats to trans people, but have no interest in creating resources to combat them. All the claiming that words constitute “literal violence” & endlessly jumping up & down on the fingers of women just clinging to the ledge about being the most vulnerable-marginalised serves to preclude being woke: self-absorption to that degree is a serious soporific.

Sorry, I got a bit sidetracked from the central point: apparently my mind set up a domino while I started writing & then the post as a whole happened. It’s not like I’ve randomly put in my shopping list or thoughts on Harry Potter; so as it’s still just about relevant enough am going to leave it in.

• followed by some (beautifully curated) self-criticism, though I note people who self-ID as Communist don’t generally seem to have much grasp on how Communism has actually [not] worked in reality or indeed anything else about it frankly