Transgender Thread.

[G.T.Ace]

Would the leader of the opposition please shut up, I didn't ask for his opinion.


Imagine this scene in our parliament. This is basically what you are doing by saying that in THE OPINIONS FORUM.

I didn't say he should shut up, I just didn't get the need to reply to a comment directed at someone else, especially when that someone else actually replied himself already. The person it was directed to even watched it, so his whole point is moot.

Nevertheless, I didn't want to wander too far off-topic, that's why I didn't want to ramble on about how it's not surprising that someone who calls himself "classical liberal" might be called conservative by others.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

The person it was directed to even watched it, so his whole point is moot.

Huh, I didn't realise that's how it worked. So if I read your post, does that mean the point of whoever replies to you disagreeing is moot?

 

[G.T.Ace]

Huh, I didn't realise that's how it worked. So if I read your post, does that mean the point of whoever replies to you disagreeing is moot?

No? Your point that it's not valid to post a video the way I did is moot, because it actually achieved what I intended.
Dobermann watched it, and that's what I wanted with that post. It doesn't matter if you think it's a "good tactic" to me, when it already worked out.

EDIT: Again, it might not work with you, but since you weren't a part of the discussion before I don't care.

 

[Tornado]

Then send a PM in the future.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Then send a PM in the future.

That would be an option too, yes, of course. I didn't see the need for it when I posted it.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

it actually achieved what I intended.

It pushed him to compare you to the alt-right and further disagree with you ? That's a very odd intent, I must admit, but if you wanted him to claim the video was very wrong and to further stand by his original statement then you did very well.

 

[G.T.Ace]

It pushed him to compare you to the alt-right and further disagree with you ? That's a very odd intent, I must admit, but if you wanted him to claim the video was very wrong and to further stand by his original statement then you did very well.

Well, I don't think anyone here will ultimately change their mind on such core issues because of some postings.
There was a chance that they might've been open to some of the points made in the video. Points which would still be the same even with me adding a comment to the video. It didn't, but Dobermann watched it and that's the most I expect.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Well, I don't think anyone here will ultimately change their mind on such core issues because of some postings.

So why direct your comments at anyone? Why post at all?

There was a chance that they might've been open to some of the points made in the video. Points which would still be the same even with me adding a comment to the video. It didn't, but Dobermann watched it and that's the most I expect.

So if he wasn't ultimately going to change his mind, what does "open to" mean in this context?

 

[G.T.Ace]

So why direct your comments at anyone? Why post at all?

I was bored and in the mood.

So if he wasn't ultimately going to change his mind, what does "open to" mean in this context?

Just that he sees that he's more of a conservative than he might think for example.
I didn't intend to change any of his opinions, I find this highly unlikely to ever happen.

 

[Dobermann92]

I was bored and in the mood.

Just that he sees that he's more of a conservative than he might think for example.
I didn't intend to change any of his opinions, I find this highly unlikely to ever happen.

You can change my opinions if you successfully argue for yours instead of just dismissing my claims and showing a video which a random dude made. I'm not a conservative if we are speaking about the political spectrum, because I'm on the left. I maybe more conservative on some of the issues which the far-left is spamming constantly, but I think there should be a social net and I support charities. I'm not even a libertarian.

On the topic of transgender people, I accept that there are people who feel like they born into the wrong sex and they want to change it. They are free to do so and I don't mind seeing those people in the TV or online. Those who are just want to feel special and use a gender which they like for example genderqueer or agender or anything else they have the right to do so also, I just hate if some of them act as like they any more special than anybody else. We are humans, we have problems, some of us just wants to go on with their lifes and don't have the time to spend on the big questions of life or human nature. Most of us aren't racist or try to be "d"-s, just want to survive in the harsh reality called life.

 

[Moglet]

Those who are just want to feel special and use a gender which they like for example genderqueer or agender or anything else they have the right to do so also

Genderqueer just means someone who doesn't subscribe to traditional gender definitions, it's not about someone wanting to feel special and use something different. It's a different term for non-binary.

I just hate if some of them act as like they any more special than anybody else. We are humans, we have problems, some of us just wants to go on with their lifes and don't have the time to spend on the big questions of life or human nature. Most of us aren't racist or try to be "d"-s, just want to survive in the harsh reality called life.

I haven't experienced anyone who is genderqueer acting like they're more special than anyone else so I don't know what sort of things occur to make this the case; what would someone be doing to make you think they considered themselves more special than others?

 

[G.T.Ace]

I'm not a conservative if we are speaking about the political spectrum, because I'm on the left.

All your views you post here actually point to the opposite.
By the way: David Pakman is not some "random dude": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pakman

I just hate if some of them act as like they any more special than anybody else. We are humans, we have problems, some of us just wants to go on with their lifes and don't have the time to spend on the big questions of life or human nature.

Where/when in your life had you ever the experience to be forced to participate in a discussion with non-binaries or trans people?
Serious question by the way.

 

[Mr Tree]

Logic tell me you are correct. However a fully transitioned transgender woman is still transgender and not "female". She is "transgender female" or just female?



I guess an examples of femine personality traits are the natural motherly instinct. There are certainly other traits, but that is one of them I find attractive. Concerning stereotypes in your example I am probably Bi.

I'd say she's a female a transexual female imo, like you have cisgender females.

Is motherly instinct a thing? I know guys who have a strobg fathersinstinct but I consider that the same charachteristic. I do believe a lot of gendernorms are what they are due to socialisation.

These are just mere suggestions, but usually you kiss before having sex and kissing a person who is the same sex as you can be frustrating later if you didn't know it in advance.

This cpuld end the relationship, but what would be so wrong with having kissed a transperson before you knew the person was trans?

I'd just like to apologize for using this term in accordance with the dictionary, and I will leave you in peace to continue.

No you didn't we didn't FORCE you to do anything. If can't see how you still don't get this. People expressing their opinion about your opinion on an opinion forum is not ganging up.

You sound like my family who spout assenine things like "it's all the fault of the refugees they get welfare but we don't" but when I reply to that statement we.shouldn't discus politics...

I have advice if you don't want people engaging with your opinions all you have to do is keep them to yourself. You can't expect to be able to spout. Your ideas and then accuses people who vocally disagree of silencing you.

No one but yourself silences you on this forum.

I stated from the beginning I didn't want to get in a big discussion about it, and I'm not going to.

Like I said if you don't want to discuss your opinion don't share. And not only on the forum this is advice for real life concersations too.

I thought I could simply express an opinion on the opinion forum, without it becoming a massive back and forth with a bunch of people but I was mistaken.
It won't happen again.

We like discussing things ok this forum...
Excuse me but I'm baffled by your attitude, feel free to send me a private message as I am very interested what reasoning you use that leads you to be suprised now.

Justice is based in logic facts and the written law it is debated and question and possible changed for the better.

SJ is emotional insanity where feelings dictate the outcome of whats right or wrong.

Justice is written in law? Should alchohol be legal? And if yes should weed/XTC/coke/.... be legal. If the answer to all of the others explain to me how that's just.

And that's not even discussing what justice means to you as we could have a diffrent view on that to.

"It started to loose it's meaning" just like the world nazi and alt-right used by the far-left?

I'm sorry I don't feel any sympathy for this point no more. Who started calling everything that's even remotly social democratic, communism? That's been going on for as long as I remember. I've seem Obama been labeled a commie, Obama for crying out loud.

Most of us aren't racist or try to be "d"-s, just want to survive in the harsh reality called life.

I disagree on some level. I think us accepting the world is harsh makes 'the world is harsh' a selffurfilling prophecy.

In the words of Dub FX:
" the world is not a vicious place
it's just the way we've been raised
Discovering time and space.
I know that we could make a change
Rearrange the way that we appreciate the word today"

Yes this is a bit utopic but there is an essence of truth there imo.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Justice is based in logic facts and the written law it is debated and question and possible changed for the better.

Quite. Of course, it takes more than one person to have that debate. Once you've got a cohesive group of people agreeing on the rules for living and how to enforce them (law, justice) then you have a society.

I don't see how you can have a working concept of justice without society and I'd be fascinated if you could explain the method you've produced for doing so?

 

[G.T.Ace]

Here are two wonderful videos describing how transphobia is still hurting people, why it's illogical how many transphobes argue, and why a binary system doesn't exist:

 

[Danoff]

Very good analysis of why transgender individuals should not compete against biological women in athletics. There is a language warning at the end for joe rogan's last bit.

 

[Danoff]

The youtube video above made a mistake regarding hemoglobin results, and he has been eating some crow as a result, backpedaling hard as a result of that one slip up in an otherwise fairly solid video. Rationality Rules (above) recently cited the video below which is a very thorough deconstruction of "the science" on transgender athletes, specifically regarding male to female individuals.



It's a long video (over an hour) and very thorough. He makes some really almost unimpeachable points, such as the fact that going through puberty as a male will have a permanent, seemingly-irreversible role on at least height, but also most likely bone density, and also possibly muscle mass. He points out that while some sports might be sufficiently level with hormone suppression at certain levels based on limited empirical evidence (distance running), other sports would undoubtedly not have a level playing field (such as basketball) unless some other mitigating factor was discovered that caused a disadvantage to transgender athletes to overcome height (and other) advantages. He makes a very compelling case that individual sports (basektball, volleyball, swimming, running, gymnastics, etc.) will have to do different analyses based on the various mitigated and non-mitigated advantages or even disadvantages of having gone through puberty as a male. These sports might legitimately reach different conclusions on the subject altogether about what constitutes fairness. He even points out that a single sport such as rugby could reach different conclusions regarding different player positions.

What I've seen throughout this discussion (both with Rationality Rules and this video here) is that the evidence is just not sufficient yet to figure out what levels of hormones or what physiological conditions (reassignment surgery, etc.), and at what time, and for how long in one's life those conditions have existed, will render the playing field level. And until we have that evidence, we need to find a different way to level the playing field.

 

[PocketZeven]

So this video has changed my perspective on how women athletes should determined. To avoid confusion: Caster semanya was born with female genitals.

 

[Imari]

What I've seen throughout this discussion (both with Rationality Rules and this video here) is that the evidence is just not sufficient yet to figure out what levels of hormones or what physiological conditions (reassignment surgery, etc.), and at what time, and for how long in one's life those conditions have existed, will render the playing field level. And until we have that evidence, we need to find a different way to level the playing field.

A level playing field may not be the ideal goal at the highest level of professional sports. Some people by nature have physical advantages in certain sports.

Someone who is five foot nothing simply isn't going to be a competitive basketball player, because there is no level of skill that overcomes that disadvantage. Being 7 foot or taller makes it very likely you can be successful at a professional level as long as you're a moderately competent athlete. Lots of sports have these sorts of edge cases where a certain physique or physical attribute has an advantage that may or may not be able to be overcome with skill.

I think it undermines the competitive aspect if certain people are banned from sports just because of who they are. It's one thing to outlaw performance enhancing drugs and such, that's something in which everyone has a choice, and it's an explicit choice to start on them. It's another to ban someone because they're born with anomalously high testosterone, and have lived that way their whole life.

I think it brings up the value and reasons for existence of having a division in male and female sports at all. I suspect that a clear and rationally supported answer to that question would lead fairly directly to a solution to how males and females should be identified for these divisions.

 

[PocketZeven]

A level playing field may not be the ideal goal at the highest level of professional sports. Some people by nature have physical advantages in certain sports.

Someone who is five foot nothing simply isn't going to be a competitive basketball player, because there is no level of skill that overcomes that disadvantage. Being 7 foot or taller makes it very likely you can be successful at a professional level as long as you're a moderately competent athlete. Lots of sports have these sorts of edge cases where a certain physique or physical attribute has an advantage that may or may not be able to be overcome with skill.

I think it undermines the competitive aspect if certain people are banned from sports just because of who they are. It's one thing to outlaw performance enhancing drugs and such, that's something in which everyone has a choice, and it's an explicit choice to start on them. It's another to ban someone because they're born with anomalously high testosterone, and have lived that way their whole life.

I think it brings up the value and reasons for existence of having a division in male and female sports at all. I suspect that a clear and rationally supported answer to that question would lead fairly directly to a solution to how males and females should be identified for these divisions.

I previously though it was quite obvious in sports and athletics, if a person was born with certain genitals. Now however these cases concerning intersex or genetic anamolies do blur these lines. There is still more research to be done I guess.

 

[Imari]

I previously though it was quite obvious in sports and athletics, if a person was born with certain genitals. Now however these cases concerning intersex or genetic anamolies do blur these lines. There is still more research to be done I guess.

What is that research going to show though? That humans can be genetically very diverse? That outliers exist in any group? We know that already. No amount of research is going to result in us being able to tidily sort humans into two physical performance groups.

What you can do is define two or more groups very clearly such that every human is a member of at least one of the groups, and let people have at it. Or define no groups at all, and lump everyone in together. Problems only start when you've defined groups and some people find that they fit into none of them. That's when "creating interesting competition" starts to look awfully like "cherry picking one's opponents".

 

[Danoff]

A level playing field may not be the ideal goal at the highest level of professional sports. Some people by nature have physical advantages in certain sports.

Someone who is five foot nothing simply isn't going to be a competitive basketball player, because there is no level of skill that overcomes that disadvantage.

The goal is not to strictly level the playing field such that all people have an equal chance. The goal is to see who is the best female athlete, because she will be buried by better male athletes if she has to compete with them.

I think it brings up the value and reasons for existence of having a division in male and female sports at all. I suspect that a clear and rationally supported answer to that question would lead fairly directly to a solution to how males and females should be identified for these divisions.

It's purely because people are interested to know who the best is of the female group. Allowing people who went through male puberty to compete against people who didn't undermines that goal in many sports and in many positions, some more than others.

For example, suppose you want to see who the best female basketball team is. If you allow people who went through male puberty to compete against them, that's the group that wins - because they're taller. It doesn't accomplish the goal of seeing who the best of the females are.

Paralympics is yet another grouping. Weight classes are yet another example of grouping. People get interested (to varying degrees) of seeing who the best is within a given grouping.

 

[PocketZeven]

What is that research going to show though? That humans can be genetically very diverse? That outliers exist in any group? We know that already. No amount of research is going to result in us being able to tidily sort humans into two physical performance groups.

What you can do is define two or more groups very clearly such that every human is a member of at least one of the groups, and let people have at it. Or define no groups at all, and lump everyone in together. Problems only start when you've defined groups and some people find that they fit into none of them. That's when "creating interesting competition" starts to look awfully like "cherry picking one's opponents".

The correct way to insure a level playing field.

 

[zzz_pt]

I think comparing testosterone to height is a red herring. Height is not the hormone that most influences the body development of a person. Testosterone on the other hand is what makes someone male develop certain characteristics, regardless of height compared to someone who didn't have as much hormones influencing their physical capabilities.

A 5, foot man won't be playing in a male team, bit if you put him against a 5foot women, he'll probably jump higher and be stronger in general playing the game.

Testosterone is the main reason why males and females are so different in the first place, so to draw a line, it has to be around that - however arbitrary it may be.

It's either that or mix everyone together, male and female, and see who are the best humans at a given sport. And in the process obliterate women's professional sports / fun.

 

[Danoff]

I think comparing testosterone to height is a red herring. Height is not the hormone that most influences the body development of a person. Testosterone on the other hand is what makes someone male develop certain characteristics, regardless of height compared to someone who didn't have as much hormones influencing their physical capabilities.

A 5, foot man won't be playing in a male team, bit if you put him against a 5foot women, he'll probably jump higher and be stronger in general playing the game.

Testosterone is the main reason why males and females are so different in the first place, so to draw a line, it has to be around that - however arbitrary it may be.

It's either that or mix everyone together, male and female, and see who are the best humans at a given sport. And in the process obliterate women's professional sports / fun.

But testosterone during puberty influences height, and height is a huge factor in many sports (volleyball, basketball, etc.). Individuals who went through female puberty just aren't as tall.

 

[zzz_pt]

But testosterone during puberty influences height, and height is a huge factor in many sports (volleyball, basketball, etc.). Individuals who went through female puberty just aren't as tall.

Yes. That's why we divide between people who have high levels of testosterone during puberty (99.9999% are men), and those who don't. Height is a consequence, just as muscle mass, etc.

Maybe I wasn't very clear. It's quite possible.

 

[Danoff]

Yes. That's why we divide between people who have high levels of testosterone during puberty (99.9999% are men), and those who don't. Height is a consequence, just as muscle mass, etc.

Maybe I wasn't very clear. It's quite possible.

I see. I thought you were saying that current and recent levels of testosterone should be the focus, as opposed to testosterone levels during puberty.

 

[zzz_pt]

I see. I thought you were saying that current and recent levels of testosterone should be the focus, as opposed to testosterone levels during puberty.

Yeah, I'm was refering to puberty especially because of the transgender issue, but not exclusively. That's why Caster Semanya's case is tricky. Because she's not trangender, but still went through puberty with high levels of testosterone and with visible impact to her body and performance improvements.

She's not to blame for having high levels of testosterone but is testosterone thresholds are abolished by the IAAF, then there won't be anything impeding men identifying as women and competing agains't them. That's the logic next step imo, considering the current social climate around these topics.

 

[Imari]

The correct way to insure a level playing field.

Why are you trying to ensure a level playing field? That's totally the opposite to what professional sports are for; competing to find the best team/individual/whatever. The whole idea is that the competition is fair with the explicit exception of the competitors. The point is to identify which of the definitely not equal competitors is the best.

Lewis Hamilton is not expected to physically or mentally handicap himself in order to compete with whoever is the latest trust fund baby on the grid. Usain Bolt does not give head starts to his competitors. Roger Federer doesn't play with a ping pong paddle to give the other side a chance. LeBron James doesn't tie his shoelaces together so that the opponent might score.

The rules and arena for play are supposed to be equal. The competitors are not.

She's not to blame for having high levels of testosterone but is testosterone thresholds are abolished by the IAAF, then there won't be anything impeding men identifying as women and competing agains't them.

Unless you picked something other than testosterone to base this sexual selection on. Like, say, anyone with a Y chromosome. I'm not saying that that's a particularly good way either, but testosterone testing or free-for-all is a false dichotomy.

Or you could just abolish the whole gender thing and have skill classes. Yeah, in some sports it's gonna be super hard for women to compete at the very highest level, but heaps of people seem to enjoy being competitive in local or national sports which co-exist with international competition just fine.

Maybe we could just be OK with the idea that men and women are not exactly the same. Maybe while everyone should get to compete, maybe it's not as valuable as we think to be creating artificial rules so that everyone can be a winner. Competition is very much not about homogeneity. It's about finding your level, then striving to be better.

 

[Michael88]

Very good analysis of why transgender individuals should not compete against biological women in athletics. There is a language warning at the end for joe rogan's last bit.

There should be a discipline for transgender athletes. Problem solved!

I've been an avid weight lifter for 15 years now, competed as well, and I can tell you, if you were born as a male and then switched gender to female, even if your testosterone level is comparable to a ''normal'' woman, your broad shoulders and skeleton geometries give you a massive, MASSIVE advantage, especially in upper body movements where women are especially weak compared to their male counterparts.

There are numerous cases where male athletes with low success switched gender and suddenly dominated the female classes. A man has bigger joints, especially in the upper body, and bigger joints mean more muscle is attached to the bone, giving you a natural advantage in strength. Also wider shoulders give you a huge pressing advantage.
I know several female athletes who stopped competing because they cannot beat those who were born as a male.