Treatments for trans children and politics, world-wide

[Ran]

(In all honesty, I was first going to respond to @polishgenius went for a walk with the dogs first, and on mulling over I decided that in fact I should delete the post because it seemed a very wrong thing for someone to drag some other member's name into their post in a way that seems to me mis-guided, at best. But since @karaddin appreciates it, I'll just respond to it.)

Has no one really taken aboard her views? I can see multiple posts in the thread quoting her and responding to her. Doesn't everyone here agree with her in rejecting "one-size-fits-all", a position that may not have seemed so straightforward at the start of the thread? Didn't she agree with the idea I'd noted that maybe we'll need to figure out some different metrics for dividing up competitions but that it seems a very hard problem? Like, we've had a discussion. It continues.

Now replying to her  and quoting her isn't enough. What is? Simply stop talking? Just agree reflexively? Turn the thread into an AMA? I really don't know what to do with this notion. 

I appreciate everyone's contributions, but no one has a monopoly on discourse. 

Edited April 26 by Ran

[karaddin]

I dedicated a pretty significant chunk of my large post to the idea that remnant advantage isn't a black and white issue, and that if that advantage results in a significantly smaller number of additional people in the top x% of athletes than will naturally be in the population of cis women then it shouldn't be considered a problem. The exact numbers would of course be open to negotiation, my argument was on the principle of the matter.

That was completely ignored in favour of fixating solely on the question of remnant advantage as a whole being unacceptable. I also don't accept that the research you linked is necessarily the whole picture, even if it is 100% correct there are additional aspects beyond what it lays out, but its also just not relevant to some of my main arguments.

The unfairness cuts both ways, implementing a just framework is about balancing that - not picking one side that's completely fair over another that is not.

I don't expect to be the sole voice on this subject, not one comment I've made in this thread suggests it should be the case, but it is extremely frustrating when the conversation consistently chases the most contentious side of things and ignores attempts to expand the common ground (with people that are acting in good faith). 

And to be perfectly honest - no, I'm not OK and getting involved in these threads is not taking care of myself, I fucking hate it and it makes me miserable. This is the one corner of the internet that I had tried to make a more accepting place for myself and I feel the need to try and defend what little I've made of it, but its terrible for me. I'd happily not see another thread discussing this topic for at least a year, and I don't start the conversations...I just feel obligated to try when someone else does.

ETA: I'm not asking for the thread to be locked just for my sake lest anyone think I'm asking for special treatment, just expressing my feelings on it.

Edited April 26 by karaddin

[polishgenius]

25 minutes ago, karaddin said:

What I particularly hate is when it seems like the behaviour of non-trans individuals in these threads seems to worsen other peoples attitudes towards trans people, that's just completely illogical and quite relevantly to the discussion - completely unfair. 

I've got to apologise here coz I seem to have thrown a bomb on the table that might do this and then gone to work. I'll respond to things Ran and others are saying response when I can.

 

But yes broadly what infuriated me was the last few pages became a point-scoring exercise by both 'sides' when it isn't about sides, it's about people. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

18 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Emma Vigelund of The Majority Report takes this point of view, and although I don't agree with it, it is a point of view that is coherent and understandable. If one thinks inclusion trumps competitive fairness, well, then the answer is clear. I think that gets complicated when scholarships, money and career advancement are on the line, but it's clear.

Transitioning involves one helluva set of hurdles to jump through just for a handful of transwomen to maybe get a small piece of that action. And depending on when they begin that transitioning process, it could require that they lose their prime athletic years or even those early years where recruitment happens. And if they are transitioning during these times, they risk losing their athletic scholarships, they are not earning money, they are not competing in athletic competitions, and they are not advancing their athletic careers. 

Moreover, in many cases, they are potentially downgrading their own athletic capabilities by transitioning and their own earnings by competing in women's sports rather than men's sports. And there is no guarantee that they will have similar levels of athletic performance as before because transitioning affects every individual differently. I think the idea that transwomen are potentially transitioning for the sake of these things often presumes a level of bad faith on their part, and it doesn't necessarily consider what is also lost in the process. 

I think that the concern for feminism in sports is laudable, but I think that feminism (a) also requires a place for transwomen, and (b) requires understanding how there is often an anti-feminist element that is part of the transphobia that seeks to exclude transwomen from sports. As @Kalbear mentioned before, the concern about testosterone levels or even just transwomen athletes "invading" women's sports has resulted in cis women also being targeted with various accusations. There are ciswomen at the upper athletic levels who have naturally higher levels of testosterone who have faced allegations of doping or somehow of being "trans infiltrators." There have been cis women at all levels of athletics who have been accused of being trans and thereby cheaters. Cis women are being subjected to "purity tests" because their own various athletic advantages are being called into question as "unfair." 

[BigFatCoward]

26 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Moreover, in many cases, they are potentially downgrading their own athletic capabilities by transitioning and their own earnings by competing in women's sports rather than men's sports. And there is no guarantee that they will have similar levels of athletic performance as before because transitioning affects every individual differently. I think the idea that transwomen are potentially transitioning for the sake of these things often presumes a level of bad faith on their part, and it doesn't necessarily consider what is also lost in the process. 

 

If someone was the 1000th best male footballer, and transitioned to be the best female (for arguments sake) they would still be earning an absolute pittance compared to their previous earnings. 

This probably applies to most sports other than tennis, golf, and maybe athletics where the top women earn a significant % of the top men.   

Other than the unpleasantness of the process itself, i am highly dubious that anyone is transitioning because of any potential uplift in performance or potential reward. 

Edited April 26 by BigFatCoward

[Liffguard]

50 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

the concern about testosterone levels or even just transwomen athletes "invading" women's sports has resulted in cis women also being targeted with various accusations. 

Yep. I want to be careful here, because I don't want to imply that measures that target trans people are only bad because cis people also get caught in the crossfire. Measures that negatively affect or target trans people are bad entirely on their own merits. But it is also true that cis people will find themselves getting targeted by the same measures, and therefore even cis people who don't care about trans issues or are even actively anti-trans should think carefully about the standards they seek to enforce. As pointed out above, cis female athletes who are deemed insufficiently feminine (which, let's be honest, frequently overlaps with race) are vulnerable to being targeted. Cis women in public who are deemed insufficiently feminine can (and have) be accused of using the "wrong" bathroom. We've seen attempts in the USA to force participants in childrens' sports to undergo physical examinations (read: genital inspections) before being allowed to participate. Attempts to single out trans people will end up hitting a lot of cis people who don't fit 100% into their assigned gender roles (and again, it would still be bad even if this wasn't the case), and these attempts will of course also just by weaponised by cynics and chancers.

 

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

I decided that in fact I should delete the post because it seemed a very wrong thing for someone to drag some other member's name into their post in a way that seems to me mis-guided, at best. 

 

I admit I was hesitant to speak for her without checking in first but tbh the reason I eventually felt I had to is this is nowhere near the first time we've been around this block on the forums and she's expressed her frustration before.

 

On the observation that people have quoted and responded - true, in a literal sense they have and 'taken absolutely nothing on board' is hyperbole. But people have been picking out specific points and running with them. The tone of the discussion she was trying to set is lost.

 

On the last part, of stifling discussion - this particular part is from me and I don't know if Karradin agrees, but I need to be clear that I don't just mean the people with opposing views. I obviously disagree with them and there are some posts that come off in context as callous, but Karradin engaged with this topic specifically to share  her perspective for some of people with different views, it's not about shutting it down. But there's been people who in principle share views with me and presumably with Karradin who have just taken this as a chance to yell accusations or have a drag-out argument about their own position on small parts of the whole wide issue and it's completely stifled the tone and a substantial portion of the substance of what she was saying.

 

 

 

Apologies Karradin if I have misrepresented you over anything here 

Edited April 26 by Ran

[TrackerNeil]

I want to say this is delicately as I can: these issues do not just affect trans people. 

Right now, a group of athletes is suing the NCAA over this. A group of athletes is suing Connecticut over this. A detransitioner is suing Kaiser Permanente. None of these litigants are trans (so far as I know), and all are claiming to have suffered losses from public or private policies about gender issues. 

It's easy to just shrug and say that these plaintiffs are hateful bigots, and that they are just whining or reacting from thwarted entitlement, but the fact is they exist and we as a society have to deal with them. The only way we do that is to have public discourse, and that means acknowledging that everyone, trans or cis, has a stake and gets a say. I don't know how these issues will ultimately be resolved, and to be honest I don't always have a strong opinion how they should be resolved, but I know that the best way to find that out is for us, on this board and in this democracy, to discuss it, hopefully respectfully and with the awareness that we're talking about lives, not chess pieces. What's the alternative?

Edited April 26 by TrackerNeil

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

, nobody has been educated or changed their mind even a teeny tiny bit on either side in the 30 odd times this has been a topic since I joined), 

Just want to chime in and say that my views on trans people changed specifically because of this board 10-12 years ago.  I hadn't known any trans individuals, and I'd say my views before then were at best transphobic and at worst casually hateful.  

I'm grateful for the opportunity to have reconsidered my thoughts.  I've since had a close friend transition and I am periodically horrified to think how that would have gone a decade earlier.  Instead I was able to be supportive.  I've also had a family member come out as non-binary a few years ago and again, I'm very thankful that they didn't have to experience any more discomfort from people they love than they did.

So thank you, board, people can and do change their views, and I'd guess it happens more than is apparent, especially if you're using online discussions as the sample, where naturally the most entrenched and intransigent positions are going to be the loudest.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I want to say this is delicately as I can: these issues do not just affect trans people. 

No one is saying otherwise. 

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Right now, a group of athletes is suing the NCAA over this. A group of athletes is suing Connecticut over this. A detransitioner is suing Kaiser Permanente. None of these litigants are trans (so far as I know), and all are claiming to have suffered losses from public or private policies about gender issues. 

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

It's easy to just shrug and say that these plaintiffs are hateful bigots, and that they are just whining or reacting from thwarted entitlement, but the fact is they exist and we as a society have to deal with them.

It easy to say that because several of the plaintiffs listed in the articles have publically voiced transphobic views. I feel comfortable saying that they are transphobic because they have said that they do not believe that transwomen are real women, but are just men posing as women, and they are repeatedly misgendering trans athletes, then we are dealing with people who actively deny and/or show hostility to trans identities. 

For example, Swimmer Riley Gaines, who is a plaintiff cited in the NCAA lawsuit, repeatedly and intentionally misgenders Lia Thomas, refers to Lia as a biological male, openly denies that transwomen are women, believes that these are men posing as women, believe that transwomen are men invading women's sports and safe spaces, which is pretty easy to see on her X/Twitter account. There are a number of other plaintiffs I have looked up who have voiced similar opinions, namely denying that transwomen are women. A number of plaintiffs view athletes like Lia Thomas not as transwomen but as "men." 

To be clear, I don't think that this is true for every plaintiff. Not every plaintiff misgenders Lia Thomas. However, I would be wary about how my views or willingness to lend my name to a lawsuit would amplify hateful voices who deny the gender identity of trans athletes or trans individuals outside of sports. 

And I think that we also have to be careful about who is backing these interests. In the case of the athletes suing Conneticut, they are being primarily backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group with vested interest in opposing abortion, opposing LGBTQ+ rights, and expanding "religious liberty" in schools. The two trans athletes are primarily being represented by the ACLU. This personally raises all sorts of red flags for me about the nature of the lawsuit. Is the Alliance Defending Freedom actually interested in protecting women? FWIW, the ADF refers to the two trans women athletes as "men," with their website framing this case as "Should men be allowed to compete in women's sports?" 

You are correct that we as a society have to deal with them, but I think that we also must be careful with how our decisions as a society also empower hate or reinforce harmful views regarding women who may be trans, intersex, or cis but perceived as outside the "norm." I also think that we have to be careful about the powers that be that are behind the scenes in these lawsuits. Because I don't think that their interests are necessarily all that concerned about feminism or what's best for women either. In many cases, there is an undeniably visible anti-trans undercurrent to these movements against trans athletes competing. 

Edited April 26 by Matrim Fox Cauthon

[Tears of Lys]

I just want to apologize to Karaddin for being even a small part in causing her grief.  It sure wasn't intended.  I had been away from the Board for quite a while and didn't realize this topic had been discussed to death.  If anyone brings this topic up again, it certainly won't be me.  My feelings aren't solidified by any means, and I don't know that I added anything substantive to the convo.  

  

[DMC]

So I just finished the first day of the next ten days of grading around 200 research papers and final exams of criminally unprepared undergrads.  It’s that time of year where I actually have to work for a living.  Why am I mentioning this here?  Because of my unmitigated appreciation for my trans students.

They aren’t many, but over the last four semesters since Spring 2023, they have been reliably in at least the 90th percentile on all facets of the course.  Spent twelve hours today going through shitty paper submission after shitty paper submission on speedgrader and then was like “oh cool!” when I hit one of my trans students cuz I knew I wasn’t gonna have to fail them for using AI.

This thread started with Ormond emphasizing the research is inconclusive and thus we should allow doctors, parents, and the trans children themselves decide the best course of action.  It then (d)evolved to kar having to elucidate the fact trans women are not threatening women’s sports.

I would just like to express my appreciation for my trans students that are markedly more engaged, diligent, and insightful.  It’s a small sample of course, but if we’re being this loose on what is “scientific,” seems fair to me.

[Guy Kilmore]

On 4/24/2024 at 7:49 AM, karaddin said:

Being born trans is a quirk of genetics/epigenetics much like many other things. It carries with it a hell of a cost for your life, and we get the added bonus of being told any advantage we happen to wrangle from that is unfair and makes us cheaters. 

The only thing that says the remnant advantages in sport that trans women may retain are unfair is a social construct. Unless the advantage is so extreme that there's not actually a contest, and no amount of studies are going to prove that because its patently not the reality of the handful of trans women that still want to fucking try despite what the world thinks of us.

---

I'm so glad I wasted so much fucking time today on a post that didn't only talk about whether transition removes all advantage or not just for everyone to ignore it. 

I saved your post to use in some real life conversations I have at work.  (I work as a mental health social worker with older teens and young adults.  I have had many battles over this issue, with parents and guardians and what not, so thank you for taking the time to post it.)

 

Edited because I am typing from a phone. 

Edited April 27 by Guy Kilmore

[HexMachina]

@karaddin I also just want to chime in here and say how much I've appreciated your posts on this board over the years I've been here. They've been very insightful, they've taught me so much and I doubt i would be where I am today without having had the chance to learn from your experience. Thank you so much much

[Heartofice]

I think what seems to be missed with many of these conversations is how much has changed in the last few years, how quickly everything is moving. What I’ve noticed is that often people are coming to these conversations with entirely different frameworks and it leads to a lot of talking past each other.

Like other people here, I have also known quite a few trans people over the years, and me and my group of friends were pretty close to a couple of trans women in, I guess, the late 2000s. So I think that has influenced my perception of what is happening.

From knowing those trans women I came to learn about the struggle with the condition, how hard their lives have been, how they have had to work for acceptance over and over again and how it was very important that they be viewed as much possible in the gender they identified with. They have had to put up with a lot of shit over the years and nobody wants to see that.

At the same time, they were also incredibly open about who they were, what their past was and where they have come from. I remember once, one showed us all photos of her as a young boy, talking about the stuff she liked back then. It was eye opening.
She was also open about saying that she wouldn’t wish her condition on anyone, and that it was something she has had to just deal with and live with.Back then I recognise that trans people were often treated as figures of fun, used for jokes and comedy purposes, and I think actually things have gotten a lot better now and there is much more sensitivity on the subject. Obviously the climate has changed in the past few years, but I will come on to that.

Here is where I think I diverge from a lot of people on the board because my view is that something changed in the early / mid 2010s in society and discourse, and it’s actually this change that has created much of the focus and I think is part of the fundamental disagreement on key points.

Changes such as:

• Gender self identification.
• A push to recognise ‘gender’ over ‘biological sex’ in a number of different areas, particularly in language and legislation. 
• A move to promote the concept that people who are trans are not just wanting to identify as another gender but  literally are the gender with which they associate: ‘Trans women are women’. 
• A definition of trans identities that moves away from being a condition related to gender dysmorphia to being more of an identity, but also something intangible and harder to define. 

I would say everything there has been done with the intention of making trans lives better and helping to create more inclusion. However I would argue that the totality of these concepts can lead to conflicting interests and perspectives and the consequences hadn’t really been properly understood.

When I’ve been in discussions about this topic in the past, I can just sense that there is such a massive gulf in the core foundations of what people believe that you end up with a lot of bad faith blown at each other. I however don’t believe that not signing up to the above points makes someone a transphobe or ‘anti trans’. Far from it.

And while I absolutely recognise that this entire topic has be co-opted by the right as a wedge issue, and no doubt there are some genuine transphobes around, especially in online American conservative circles, there are also a lot of people who just have different views on the above ideas. From my experience I don’t think it’s necessary to believe the above to want trans people to have the best possible lives and care.

I also agree with the idea that we should be treating people as individuals, that making sweeping statements about any one group is unhelpful.
 

[TrackerNeil]

On 4/25/2024 at 1:06 AM, TrueMetis said:

I've seen people calling for trans women to be banned from chess, darts, and fucking pool. Which suggests to me the "reasonable concerns" are just a cover for a bunch of bigots. Sometimes you need to look at who is using the same argument you are, and maybe just stop.

Dick Cheney, a terrible vice-president to a terrible president, who has execrable views on most things, was pro-same-sex marriage, back when that was still a cultural debate**. Should I have abandoned my own support for SSM?

I don't much care for the guilt-by-association approach to any topic, because it often assumes that people who arrive at the same conclusion made the same journey, and I think that's just not reflective of the human experience. People form their opinions in many ways, often without any real intellectual rigor, but that doesn't necessarily make those opinions bad.

**I'll point out that, twelve years ago, SSM was hotly debated on this board, and not just by gay boarders. Everyone got a say, and even if I didn't always care for what I heard, I'm glad I heard it.

Edited April 28 by TrackerNeil

[DMC]

40 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Dick Cheney, a terrible vice-president to a terrible president, who has execrable views on most things, was pro-same-sex marriage, back when that was still a cultural debate**

To be clear, Cheney’s position was more “state’s rights” during that period.  Kind of like the line Trump is currently trying to toe with abortion.  Cheney also supported DOMA at that time.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

To be clear, Cheney’s position was more “state’s rights” during that period.  Kind of like the line Trump is currently trying to toe with abortion.  Cheney also supported DOMA at that time.

Ok, let me drop the example and ask the question once more. Am I required to change a specific belief because someone I find objectionable agrees with me on that specific belief?

Edited April 28 by TrackerNeil

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Ok, let me drop the example and ask the question once more. Am I required to change a specific belief because someone I find objectionable agrees with me on that specific belief?

I just wanted to clarify the record on Cheney and SSM.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

Ok, let me drop the example and ask the question once more. Am I required to change a specific belief because someone I find objectionable agrees with me on that specific belief?

You are not required to change your beliefs for any reason. You can hold all the objectionable beliefs that you want to for whatever the reasons, good or bad.