Transgender Thread.

[TexRex]

For me? The post preceding mine was one of yours, so I'll assume so.

I know that you have a fine grasp of the English language and present as having plenty of knowledge and intelligence. I know that you're capable of engaging in a much less dismissive and much more thoughtful/respectful way. I don't understand why comparing body identity integrity disorder (as the amputation thing is known as) and trans surgeries would be so confounding for you. Well, that's what I'm gleaning from your post, it's difficult since you chose not to use your words. I get that dismissiveness is about all that some people deserve with what they offer up in here but I sincerely hope that I have earnt / will earn more respect than that.

Now, would you like to have a conversation?

I suppose where the comparison (between general healthy limb amputation and, say, penectomy, or surgical removal of the penis from the body to which the particular member is attached) bumps most for me isn't with the comparison itself* but with the notion of parents' rights in the matter. Certainly gender affirming care includes treatments that fall decidedly short of--and presumably more reversible than--genital amputation, indeed gender affirming surgery in general, and certainly these sorts of treatments may occur before the recipient has aged 18 years, but surgery itself, in the United States, requires the recipient having reached that age, barring what I gather to be very exceptional circumstances. At age 18, while an individual's parents may be among interested parties, they don't, barring what I would expect are very exceptional circumstances, have any say in the matter as far as the law is concerned.

*I should say that I don't actually have issue with the comparison itself. While I can't see it for myself, much like gender affirming surgery, I do recognize individuals may not be comfortable..."limbed"...as they are. It's all the more curious (except it's exactly not) that those of a particular persuasion haven't gone after this sort of care with the same passion as they have for gender affirming care.

To your earlier point, I do believe the right to exit life should be just as protected as the right to life itself. What is the sanctity of it if it's compulsory?

And I apologize. It wasn't my intent to be dismissive but I can see how my response was perceived as such. The post to which it was in response seemed odd for the reason I highlighted and I realize I could have (possibly should have) elaborated at the time.

Edit:

Civil rights groups fighting for emergency order to keep injunction in place amid Texas transgender directive's appeal

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an appeal on last week's decision.

www.kvue.com

 

[LeMansAid]

I suppose where the comparison (between general healthy limb amputation and, say, penectomy, or surgical removal of the penis from the body to which the particular member is attached) bumps most for me isn't with the comparison itself* but with the notion of parents' rights in the matter. Certainly gender affirming care includes treatments that fall decidedly short of--and presumably more reversible than--genital amputation, indeed gender affirming surgery in general, and certainly these sorts of treatments may occur before the recipient has aged 18 years, but surgery itself, in the United States, requires the recipient having reached that age, barring what I gather to be very exceptional circumstances. At age 18, while an individual's parents may be among interested parties, they don't, barring what I would expect are very exceptional circumstances, have any say in the matter as far as the law is concerned.

*I should say that I don't actually have issue with the comparison itself. While I can't see it for myself, much like gender affirming surgery, I do recognize individuals may not be comfortable..."limbed"...as they are. It's all the more curious (except it's exactly not) that those of a particular persuasion haven't gone after this sort of care with the same passion as they have for gender affirming care.

To your earlier point, I do believe the right to exit life should be just as protected as the right to life itself. What is the sanctity of it if it's compulsory?

And I apologize. It wasn't my intent to be dismissive but I can see how my response was perceived as such. The post to which it was in response seemed odd for the reason I highlighted and I realize I could have (possibly should have) elaborated at the time.

Thank you.

Ha, in an ironic twist I'm now trying to decipher if your words (that I requested) tell me that reassignment surgeries are allowed or not allowed in people sub-eighteen. From some reading elsewhere it seems that such surgeries are allowed, so for now I'll operate under that premise. Though, if they're not allowed it raises the question of what should come under the banner of "corrective surgery".

Maybe it wasn't clear but my focus is also on parents' rights, and if/when the government can justifiably intervene. Should "I don't want my penis", "I don't want my left forearm" and "I don't want my life" be treated equally? Sometimes (like with age of consent itself) we need to draw an arbitrary line - if the penis/forearm/life (death) situation requires that, where should the line be? The other options would be to allow none of them, or all of them.

 

[TexRex]

Thank you.

Ha, in an ironic twist I'm now trying to decipher if your words (that I requested) tell me that reassignment surgeries are allowed or not allowed in people sub-eighteen. From some reading elsewhere it seems that such surgeries are allowed, so for now I'll operate under that premise. Though, if they're not allowed it raises the question of what should come under the banner of "corrective surgery".

Maybe it wasn't clear but my focus is also on parents' rights, and if/when the government can justifiably intervene. Should "I don't want my penis", "I don't want my left forearm" and "I don't want my life" be treated equally? Sometimes (like with age of consent itself) we need to draw an arbitrary line - if the penis/forearm/life (death) situation requires that, where should the line be? The other options would be to allow none of them, or all of them.

Definitions aren't unimportant but I think the focus, particularly where government is involved, should be on the prevention of harm and the preservation of rights.

That I can't point to a prevalence of relevant surgical procedures performed on those whose consent isn't recognized by law due to age or cognitive capacity at least suggests that there may not be a prevalence. Nothing I've read says definitively that no such procedures are performed, but I also haven't been able to determine at what age and under what circumstances they have been; "exceptional" certainly seems appropriate here. In the absence of a prevalence, can harm be reasonably said to be prevented by the enactment of prohibitions?

Furthermore, can blanket prohibitions and measures such as directives to state agencies to investigate parties believed to have sought and acquired gender affirming care short of surgical precedures for parental abuse and penalties for seeking gender affirming care short of surgical procedures out-of-state be reasonably said to be about preservation of rights?

Only after it's been reasonably established that government intervention legitimately prevents harm and preserves rights should lines be drawn. From where I sit, it looks less like prevention of harm and preservation of rights, and more like culture war pandering and performativity.

Edit: Substitute general healthy limb amputation and/or suicide for gender affirming care where applicable.

 

[Daniel]

For me? The post preceding mine was one of yours, so I'll assume so.

I know that you have a fine grasp of the English language and present as having plenty of knowledge and intelligence. I know that you're capable of engaging in a much less dismissive and much more thoughtful/respectful way. I don't understand why comparing body identity integrity disorder (as the amputation thing is known as) and trans surgeries would be so confounding for you. Well, that's what I'm gleaning from your post, it's difficult since you chose not to use your words. I get that dismissiveness is about all that some people deserve with what they offer up in here but I sincerely hope that I have earnt / will earn more respect than that.

Now, would you like to have a conversation?

(Forgive me - I'm being facetious and also wanted to keep the Ryan Reynolds GIFs coming)

I think one thing to consider is that there doesn't seem to be much research into BIID versus the weath of knowledge we have on gender dysphoria and gender affirmation surgery. If it turns out that the research is overall in favour of amputation for those with BIID then I guess it's not problematic. 🤷

To add, it seems a little bit 'whataboutist' to expect trans people (or parents of trans kids) to support those suffering from BIID to get surgery done. I mean... sure they can but there currently isn't widespread institutional discrimination against those with BIID, nor are state legislators actively attemting to pass laws that will harm them.

Thank you.

Ha, in an ironic twist I'm now trying to decipher if your words (that I requested) tell me that reassignment surgeries are allowed or not allowed in people sub-eighteen. From some reading elsewhere it seems that such surgeries are allowed, so for now I'll operate under that premise. Though, if they're not allowed it raises the question of what should come under the banner of "corrective surgery".

Maybe it wasn't clear but my focus is also on parents' rights, and if/when the government can justifiably intervene. Should "I don't want my penis", "I don't want my left forearm" and "I don't want my life" be treated equally? Sometimes (like with age of consent itself) we need to draw an arbitrary line - if the penis/forearm/life (death) situation requires that, where should the line be? The other options would be to allow none of them, or all of them.

Ideally it should be dependent on what research suggests, along with (as @TexRex mentioned) preservation of life and minimisation of harm.

At this point, medical institutions generally concur that gender affirming treatment such as hormones, social transitions and surgery are the right treatment. With BIID, there doesn't yet seem to be enough research (relatively speaking) to confidently state the best course for treatment (i.e. body affirming surgery, therapy or otherwise).

 

[LeMansAid]

Definitions aren't unimportant but I think the focus, particularly where government is involved, should be on the prevention of harm and the preservation of rights.

That I can't point to a prevalence of relevant surgical procedures performed on those whose consent isn't recognized by law due to age or cognitive capacity at least suggests that there may not be a prevalence. Nothing I've read says definitively that no such procedures are performed, but I also haven't been able to determine at what age and under what circumstances they have been; "exceptional" certainly seems appropriate here. In the absence of a prevalence, can harm be reasonably said to be prevented by the enactment of prohibitions?

Furthermore, can blanket prohibitions and measures such as directives to state agencies to investigate parties believed to have sought and acquired gender affirming care short of surgical precedures for parental abuse and penalties for seeking gender affirming care short of surgical procedures out-of-state be reasonably said to be about preservation of rights?

Only after it's been reasonably established that government intervention legitimately prevents harm and preserves rights should lines be drawn. From where I sit, it looks less like prevention of harm and preservation of rights, and more like culture war pandering and performativity.

Edit: Substitute general healthy limb amputation and/or suicide for gender affirming care where applicable.

I can see why people might want to take trajectory into account and get in before the "problem" becomes readily apparent. Surely the potential of gender reassignment being requested/enacted is far greater now than 5 years ago, much more again than 10 years ago, and so on.

I think it's really tricky - how much distortion (from what I see adults are completely entitled to decide for themselves) are we prepared to have when an adult makes a decision on behalf of a child? For now, you're probably right that it's an answer to a question "no-one" (read, very few) is asking, but for how long?

(Forgive me - I'm being facetious and also wanted to keep the Ryan Reynolds GIFs coming)

I think one thing to consider is that there doesn't seem to be much research into BIID versus the weath of knowledge we have on gender dysphoria and gender affirmation surgery. If it turns out that the research is overall in favour of amputation for those with BIID then I guess it's not problematic. 🤷

To add, it seems a little bit 'whataboutist' to expect trans people (or parents of trans kids) to support those suffering from BIID to get surgery done. I mean... sure they can but there currently isn't widespread institutional discrimination against those with BIID, nor are state legislators actively attemting to pass laws that will harm them.

I think it's often important to distance oneself from the emotion of a topic, I find that presenting analogous situations can help greatly in achieving that, and also finding what the further implications of a particular stance might be.

Discrimination is a moot point here and really just serves to squash objectivity. If anything though I'd expect someone with BIID to have a purer want for their modification, due to there presumably being no discrimination to escape (unless we count poker machines, maybe).

 

[Danoff]

Parents don't own their children, and children don't fully have rights to themselves. There are some decisions that a parent and child might come to which either simply cannot be made, even for the parent and child (like underage marriage), or which really should have at least a third party involved (like suicide).

I do think, in certain circumstances, that child suicide should be allowed, but that doesn't mean that the parent and child get complete control over the decision. In no way do I think it's appropriate for child suicide to occur without some kind of doctor (or 5) involved in the decision.

Parents and children can't even decide on their own to administer antibiotics, why would we trust them with the sole decision on euthanasia or reassignment surgery?

 

[TexRex]

I can see why people might want to take trajectory into account and get in before the "problem" becomes readily apparent.

Three questions:

Is that how the law should work?

Really?

Why?

[These aren't unserious questions, but I should make clear that I'm being flippant here, specifically with the second one.]

Surely the potential of gender reassignment being requested/enacted is far greater now than 5 years ago, much more again than 10 years ago, and so on.

I suspect the numbers here are fuzzy but I can absolutely get behind the notion, which I gather is the thrust of the remark, that it's more accepted now than it was in the [recent to distant] past. That's not a problem. That's actually a good thing. Of course that's not to say that it's universally accepted.

I think it's really tricky - how much distortion (from what I see adults are completely entitled to decide for themselves) are we prepared to have when an adult makes a decision on behalf of a child? For now, you're probably right that it's an answer to a question "no-one" (read, very few) is asking, but for how long?

If there's a problem, it's that those who are not of sufficient age or cognitive capacity for consent to be recognized by law (and I should say that I don't personally have an issue with the age specified; I recognize that it may not be perfect--one size fits all--but it's acceptable) may be subjected to life-altering treatments such as surgical procedures to remove or functionally augment genitalia. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to consider this a genuine problem, but I have some serious questions about cause and efforts to remedy it. How prevalent is it? Have the remedies that have been put forth been justified? How so? Do they offer a legitimate remedy in preventing harm and do they preserve not only the rights of individuals to not be subjected to said harm but also the right of individuals to undergo gender affirming treatments that can't be reasonably said to be life-altering.

I gather a lot of the effort to remedy potential harm is undertaken by providers themselves. Particularly before surgical procedures are performed, I'm seeing insistence by the providers on assessments of individuals seeking treatment regardless of age, but it looks like assessments are even required for gender affirming treatments that fall short of surgical procedures. I think that's a good thing. I'm also seeing age of consent as a requirement for gender affirming surgical procedures, and this is my preference even if I don't have skin in the game.

I question broad prohibitions by law. Maybe they offer some degree of legitimate protection against harm and preservation of the right to not be subjected to harm--I'm not sold on that, mind--but they seem to be far more in search of a problem and I'd suggest that other rights are violated in the process.

 

[LeMansAid]

I just like people to understand that when they decide (or think they decide) their opinion based on principle there will usually be further implications for that. I've come across plenty of people, for example, that think they support gay marriage based on principle but that when questioned about intrafamilial marriage (and showing an opposition to the right for it) it's revealed that their thinking was merely topical - that their fairness ideology was limited to their chosen demographics. I come across a lot of smarmy, holier-than-thou attitudes from people that view themselves as exceedingly liberal but are ultimately simply keeping up with what attitude is "in fashion". It bugs the hell out of me and I apologise if I've essentially just shoehorned a rant in here.

Three questions:

Is that how the law should work?

Really?

Why?

[These aren't unserious questions, but I should make clear that I'm being flippant here, specifically with the second one.]

A person on their own would need no laws, because there would be no rights to violate. Add a second person and it will then become possible for rights to be violated. Add a thousand more people and and it's that much more likely that rights will be violated. As a community of two they may decide that there's no need for laws but think quite differently when learning of the thousand people set to join them. I'll assume that you get what I'm on about with the trajectory of that. I don't think that there's anything wrong with pre-emptively enshrining a sensible law, the question should always be whether or not it's sensible/fair.

I suspect the numbers here are fuzzy but I can absolutely get behind the notion, which I gather is the thrust of the remark, that it's more accepted now than it was in the [recent to distant] past. That's not a problem. That's actually a good thing. Of course that's not to say that it's universally accepted.

More likely, rather than more accepted, was what I was going for. They really go hand in hand though.

"A good thing"? Hmm.... I think it's sad that rather than truly becoming gender liberated we're largely just seeing stereotypes reinforced in new/different ways. In no way do I blame people for wanting to reconcile their innate wants/needs with something that somewhat conforms to societal norms but I don't see that as liberation. Instead of tearing down "walls", minimising the emphasis on gender and saying "anything goes" we're seeing an actual obsession with gender labels. I'm sure it's a "good thing" for certain individuals in the current climate, and maybe it's a lesser "evil" right now but I think it may well damn the future to, at best, a crippled and impure form of gender liberation.

 

[TexRex]

I don't think that there's anything wrong with pre-emptively enshrining a sensible law, the question should always be whether or not it's sensible/fair.

What, to your mind, is "sensible"/"fair"?

As far as I'm concerned, a "sensible" law is one that meaningfully protects against legitimate harm and preserves the rights of the governed. "Fair" means that, in preserving the rights of the governed, the rights of the governed aren't violated.

More likely, rather than more accepted, was what I was going for.

Why is it more likely? Could it be due in significant part to it being more accepted and that treatments are more readily available?

They really go hand in hand though.

Yes.

"A good thing"? Hmm.... I think it's sad that rather than truly becoming gender liberated we're largely just seeing stereotypes reinforced in new/different ways.

Why is progress short of "gender liberation," whatever that is..."sad"?

In no way do I blame people for wanting to reconcile their innate wants/needs with something that somewhat conforms to societal norms but I don't see that as liberation.

Does it need to be? Why?

Instead of tearing down "walls", minimising the emphasis on gender and saying "anything goes" we're seeing an actual obsession with gender labels.

Some individuals wish to minimize the emphasis on gender; I'm given to understand the desire to be referred to by "they/them" pronouns is rooted in this idea. I also recognize this isn't for everyone. Indeed it isn't for me...though I generally respect that desire.

I should say that the obsession has been a constant for...probably millennia?

I'm sure it's a "good thing" for certain individuals in the current climate, and maybe it's a lesser "evil" right now but I think it may well damn the future to, at best, a crippled and impure form of gender liberation.

Why would it?

 

[TexRex]

@Joey D does this seem at all consistent or may there be a body snatcher situation afoot?

 

[UKMikey]

I'm just glad Cox has decided to stand up for the kids.

 

[Joey D]

@Joey D does this seem at all consistent or may there be a body snatcher situation afoot?

Cox is about as liberal as you can expect from a Mormon Utah politician, which surprisingly translates into not being totally against LGBTQ folks. He's also acutely aware of the suicide rates among Mormon teens too and I'm guessing he's not exactly keen on the future of the church killing themselves.

The LDS Church is starting to come around too, not because they're pro-LGBTQ rights or anything, but because they'd rather have someone staying with the church and giving them money than up and leaving. Weirdly enough, the last time missionaries came to my house they really tried to sell the church to me. When I said I didn't want to give up drinking or caffeine, they replied it was fine with the LDS Church as long as I made an effort to cut back and live a healthy lifestyle. Really, they were just going along with the sales pitch of the church to increase its membership by any means necessary, and if that means turning a blind eye to one of the tenants of the religion then so be it.

I don't really mind it though, I'd rather them be accepting, even if it's not exactly for altruistic reasons.

With regards to the bill, it's stupid that it's even needed and it's even stupider that our legislative branch is calling a special session just so they can override the veto. To give some context, they wouldn't even call a special session to figure out fire restrictions to prevent wildfires. And since some states don't operate like this, I'll point out that our legislative branch isn't full-time. They have, I think, two 45 day sessions a year with the option to call up to 5 special sessions. The rest of the year, they work their regular jobs. This is in contrast to Michigan where the legislature works as full-time as politicians.

I do agree with the bill on some level though. I don't think biological males should play sports with biological females and vice versa. The physiology between the two sexes is different and it would lead to an advantage or disadvantage depending on the sport. I'm not entirely sure how you should handle it though. A good example is Lia Thomas right now. Compared to other women who are swimming her body is vastly different because she's biologically male. All one has to do is look at the average times for any swimming event and you'll see there's a clear difference between males and females and that mostly comes down to physiology.

With that said though, in Utah, we have 5 kids who are trans playing sports. I'm not even sure what sports they are playing, but the number is so small that it doesn't need to be regulated by the state government.

 

[TexRex]

With regards to the bill, it's stupid that it's even needed and it's even stupider that our legislative branch is calling a special session just so they can override the veto. To give some context, they wouldn't even call a special session to figure out fire restrictions to prevent wildfires.

No culture war implications concerning wildfires.

With that said though, in Utah, we have 5 kids who are trans playing sports. I'm not even sure what sports they are playing, but the number is so small that it doesn't need to be regulated by the state government.

This is where I am regardless of prevalence. States certainly have some latitude when it comes to public institutions, but it seems like there ought to be a non-legislative remedy.

I'm just glad Cox has decided to stand up for the kids.

 

[LeMansAid]

Why is progress short of "gender liberation," whatever that is..."sad"?

I think that we were on a better path before the current wave of change begun. A very incomplete journey, but a better path. Stereotypes were being eroded, with the expectations of gender roles and gender traits steadily broadening. I think it's sad that that was interrupted by what has a liberal look to it but is actually abstractly regressive. It's "sad" because it's not actual progress (which doesn't mean that it won't feel a whole lot better for some). It's sexist to say "I'm having my penis cut off because I'm a woman", just as it is to say "I wear dresses because I'm a woman". Having defined gender traits is really no better when they fluidly follow the people in question (the "new" way) vs those traits being applied to static subjects (the "old" way). It's like releasing someone from prison but having them constantly surrounded by guards - the lack of liberation follows them.

Does it need to be? Why?

I want to be aiming for a society where we're not reinforcing gender stereotypes. Delinking traits from genders is key to that. I think it's impossible for a sense of gender to be innate (a person that had never seen another living being would have no frame of reference for it) but I absolutely know that people have innate preferences and tendencies that don't align with gender norms. I don't blame those people for wanting to present as one within a demographic we've got a pigeonhole for, but that will very often mean making sexist decisions. "I was born male but have traits that align with my experience of females. I will call myself female." is sexist.

I don't just want a new, "mobile" form of sexism for society.

 

[TexRex]

I think that we were on a better path before the current wave of change begun. A very incomplete journey, but a better path. Stereotypes were being eroded, with the expectations of gender roles and gender traits steadily broadening. I think it's sad that that was interrupted by what has a liberal look to it but is actually abstractly regressive. It's "sad" because it's not actual progress (which doesn't mean that it won't feel a whole lot better for some). It's sexist to say "I'm having my penis cut off because I'm a woman", just as it is to say "I wear dresses because I'm a woman". Having defined gender traits is really no better when they fluidly follow the people in question (the "new" way) vs those traits being applied to static subjects (the "old" way). It's like releasing someone from prison but having them constantly surrounded by guards - the lack of liberation follows them.

I'm not convinced we were on such a path. A group of individuals of indeterminate size may have decided to broaden their expectations of gender roles and traits, but I don't think society as a collective can be reasonably said to have been headed that way.

I also don't think the notion of transitioning is entirely at odds with that supposed path. There is undoubtedly an incompatibility, particularly when it comes to gender traits, but that isn't to say that the supposed path has been "interrupted."

The desire to transition isn't itself that different from the desire to have one's body conform to one's body image to which you referred in your earlier preemptive allegation of a double standard. Those who transition aren't necessarily committed to adopting roles commonly associated, if irrationally, with traits.

 

[Moglet]

I want to be aiming for a society where we're not reinforcing gender stereotypes. Delinking traits from genders is key to that. I think it's impossible for a sense of gender to be innate (a person that had never seen another living being would have no frame of reference for it) but I absolutely know that people have innate preferences and tendencies that don't align with gender norms. I don't blame those people for wanting to present as one within a demographic we've got a pigeonhole for, but that will very often mean making sexist decisions. "I was born male but have traits that align with my experience of females. I will call myself female." is sexist.

I don't just want a new, "mobile" form of sexism for society.

This is something I struggle with; I have a constant battle going on in my head between being non-binary vs. just being gender non-conforming. The reason I differentiate between the 2 is because I could be gender non-conforming and still be happy to be called a guy, but there are definitely days when that isn't true. On those days just doing something stereotypically feminine isn't enough.

 

[CodeRedR51]

 

[TexRex]

Ah.

 

[McLaren]

The supporters?

Can we please trade this dude to another country for one of their citizens?

 

[Scaff]

Piece on Lia Thomas's actual performance level in comparison to the rest if the field.

Why the data shows trans swimming champion Lia Thomas didn’t have an unfair advantage

The NCAA champion has sparked controversy and become a hate figure among conservatives, but statistics show little evidence that she performed any differently to other women, Io Dodds reports

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Dan]

Ah.

Totally normal human behavior.

 

[TexRex]

The supporters?

Totally normal human bebehavior.

If that's what he thinks should be done to advocates for transgender rights, I don't want to know what he'd have done to those who are actually transgender.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

This is a sticky issue. For me, it's hard to see somebody who reached puberty as a male and has the resulting skeletal structure not have some kind of advantage against people who reached puberty as female. I mean, just look at the shoulders of Lia Thomas. Even with hormone therapy that basic skeletal structure isn't going away. But I don't see this as a problem with Lia Thomas who I think is genuine and who didn't transition to dominate other women in sports, I see it as a problem with sports. Sports, especially one's like swimming are pretty friggin 1-dimensional. It's almost a pure physiological test.

I would like to see some new sports that could be competitive for all genders at the same time. Qualifying this example first by saying I think it's kind of dumb and has some serious theoretical issues, (not to mention the quite flagrant optics problem of even mentioning it in this context considering it's source) the game of Quidditch in the Harry Potter universe is interesting in that it has something that no contemporary mainstream sport has...simultaneous focus on several different actions and less focus on pure athletic ability. Females/women have been shown to have better multi-tasking abilities than men in tests that I've seen which could give them a balancing advantage in a sport which doesn't have a singular focus. I think it would be awesome if somebody could develop a sport that the entire spectrum of gender identify could engage in at the same time. Raw biologic athletic advantage balanced out by multi-tasking focus...or something. American football has some of this multi-focus nature, but obviously 99% of women would have a hard time in the NFL...Who wants to help me come up with a premise for a gender-neutral sport?

 

[TexRex]

 

[PeterJB]

This is a sticky issue. For me, it's hard to see somebody who reached puberty as a male and has the resulting skeletal structure not have some kind of advantage against people who reached puberty as female. I mean, just look at the shoulders of Lia Thomas. Even with hormone therapy that basic skeletal structure isn't going away. But I don't see this as a problem with Lia Thomas who I think is genuine and who didn't transition to dominate other women in sports, I see it as a problem with sports. Sports, especially one's like swimming are pretty friggin 1-dimensional. It's almost a pure physiological test.

I would like to see some new sports that could be competitive for all genders at the same time. Qualifying this example first by saying I think it's kind of dumb and has some serious theoretical issues, (not to mention the quite flagrant optics problem of even mentioning it in this context considering it's source) the game of Quidditch in the Harry Potter universe is interesting in that it has something that no contemporary mainstream sport has...simultaneous focus on several different actions and less focus on pure athletic ability. Females/women have been shown to have better multi-tasking abilities than men in tests that I've seen which could give them a balancing advantage in a sport which doesn't have a singular focus. I think it would be awesome if somebody could develop a sport that the entire spectrum of gender identify could engage in at the same time. Raw biologic athletic advantage balanced out by multi-tasking focus...or something. American football has some of this multi-focus nature, but obviously 99% of women would have a hard time in the NFL...Who wants to help me come up with a premise for a gender-neutral sport?

It needs to be physical, but with minimal emphasis on the physicality. Clay pigeon shooting comes to mind, or even archery.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It needs to be physical, but with minimal emphasis on the physicality. Clay pigeon shooting comes to mind, or even archery.

In my head there would be multiple simultaneous objectives. That's the sort of interesting premise behind Quidditch, although Rowling's clumsy logic effectively invalidates most of it. The nearest analogue I can think of is actual war where there are a myriad of short term and long term goals and no set criteria for how to accomplish them, but a lot of things to keep track of at the same time.

 

[Exorcet]

Raw biologic athletic advantage balanced out by multi-tasking focus...or something. American football has some of this multi-focus nature, but obviously 99% of women would have a hard time in the NFL...Who wants to help me come up with a premise for a gender-neutral sport?

It needs to be physical, but with minimal emphasis on the physicality. Clay pigeon shooting comes to mind, or even archery.

Wouldn't this be any activity where actions aren't a direct result of body motion? Auto Racing, Virtual Sports, anything involving the control of a machine rather than direct use of the body.

Alternatively just drop the entire male/female thing and come up with a score that rates biological ability. People with similar scores are put in the same class no matter their sex. Male/female classification is flawed anyway because within the male/female categories things can be just as unbalanced as male vs female. It's why there are weight classes in some sports. I think this has come up before in this thread.

 

[Scaff]

That's the sort of interesting premise behind Quidditch, although Rowling's clumsy logic effectively invalidates most of it.

That's not the only thing that invalidates Rowling in any discussion about the validity of trans rights.

 

[eran0004]

@Eunos_Cosmo If her times aren’t much better than other elite female swimmers I don’t see a problem. Sure, there may be physiological advantages, but pretty much all elite swimmers, male or female, do have a physiological advantage over the average man/woman so it’s hard to draw a line to say that some advantages are fair and some are not.

In Lia Thomas’ case, she was one of the best male swimmers before the gender therapy, so it makes sense that she is one of the best female swimmers after the therapy as well. Since she is not dominating the sport I don’t see an unfair advantage there.

 

[Com Fox]

Ah.

Jesus, that's horrific. I can't believe this is my first exposure to people like that.

Alternatively just drop the entire male/female thing and come up with a score that rates biological ability. People with similar scores are put in the same class no matter their sex. Male/female classification is flawed anyway because within the male/female categories things can be just as unbalanced as male vs female. It's why there are weight classes in some sports. I think this has come up before in this thread.

If only we could go this approach. Granted might be more difficult in established team sports. (I have no idea how something like Soccer could do away with the outdated Male/Female system). But individual sports can definitely go this route