It's important to remind people that the stated aim of controlling who trans athletes can compete against is nothing to do with fairness in sport, and is entirely about making life harder for...
Exemplary
It's important to remind people that the stated aim of controlling who trans athletes can compete against is nothing to do with fairness in sport, and is entirely about making life harder for trans people. It's about elimination of trans people. This is why we call out people who launder the extremist position to be more acceptable to an otherwise liberal audience.
The people who campaign against trans athletes say they're just trying to protect women's rights. But those people have, overwhelmingly often, never said anything about for example rates of pay for women athletes or coaches, rates of sexual abuse in sports and training, availability of facilities, or the disproportionate focus on male sporting events.
And we know they're making anti trans, not pro women, points because the argument is incoherent: trans women apparently retain huge biological advantage thus they win everything they enter, but simultaneously transition is devastating to health and is so harmful we need to ban it. Both can't be true (and it turns out neither is true). This argument that almost any male, no matter their level of training, would win against any female, even elite athletes, is so anti-woman it doesn't need further comment.
I don’t know anything about the health issues and won’t comment on the substance, but to make a technical point about logic, it doesn’t doesn’t follow that “both can’t be true.” Steroid use, for...
I don’t know anything about the health issues and won’t comment on the substance, but to make a technical point about logic, it doesn’t doesn’t follow that “both can’t be true.” Steroid use, for example, both increases athletic performance and has some serious health risks. Some drugs are banned in athletic competitions because they’re effective but risky, and if allowed, more athletes will take them despite the risks.
The difference here is that the argument isn't to ban medical transition only when it comes to sports. The argument is to ban transition entirely. It's why the claims of being concerned about...
The difference here is that the argument isn't to ban medical transition only when it comes to sports. The argument is to ban transition entirely. It's why the claims of being concerned about children's well-being do not align with the concerns about "men" invading women's sports.
Of course, the claims about children's well-being do not align with facts anyway.
Yes. It is important to note that these peoples’ arguements are not in good faith. They do not come up with them because it is really what they have reasoned or strongly feel, they bring them up...
Yes. It is important to note that these peoples’ arguements are not in good faith. They do not come up with them because it is really what they have reasoned or strongly feel, they bring them up as smokescreens for their actual feelings so they can function in polite society.
Once upon a time it was ok to be against gay rights for the “sanctity of marriage”. Yet strangely domestic partnership laws to give gay people the legal rights of marriage were not popular. It turns out they just hated gay people.
Honestly this is kind of an archaic viewpoint on steroids and most modern PEDs. The science has come quite a long way since the 60s yet the narrative of how dangerous they are has persisted...
Some drugs are banned in athletic competitions because they’re effective but risky, and if allowed, more athletes will take them despite the risks.
Honestly this is kind of an archaic viewpoint on steroids and most modern PEDs. The science has come quite a long way since the 60s yet the narrative of how dangerous they are has persisted because it's a part of the war on drugs and that it's an easy target for "fairness".
But perhaps more importantly in this particular context, I find it deeply ironic that PEDs are almost never discussed when we talk about trans people in sports. Instead, we talk about the "inherent biological advantage" of people born men and ignore the details. Steroids and PEDs can bring people to supraphysiological levels of testosterone or induce levels of muscle growth and selection not seen in humans naturally, and people are constantly thrown out of competitive sports when they are found out to have used PEDs. Their use is absolutely rampant in sports at high levels of competition, and despite likely being the most important predictor of success, it is ignored in discussions around trans people in sports. Also of note, trans sports discussions always erase trans men who's levels of testosterone might be on the upper end of "normal" physiological levels (and difficult to detect when it may have exceeded into supraphysiological levels, meaning it would be easier for them to abuse PEDs).
Honestly there's so much to unpack in elite level sports it's absolutely wild to me that people have decided their laser focus should be on trans athletes specifically. These sports are not fair and never were fair - they are designed to find the outliers of humans among billions. People who have webbed feet and toes making them faster at swimming. People who have genetically enlarged hearts, allowing them to pump more blood per stroke and outperform in cardio. People who have the genetic predisposition to pack on muscle almost limitlessly because of the way their muscle building protein works (Myostatin-related muscle hypertrophy or MSTN). The very idea that a single characteristic which has nothing to do with genetics or variation could have such a huge impact on sports on this level of play is absurd. It's a house of cards which absolutely crumbles upon even the most minor inspection from nearly any angle.
To discuss the actual topic, this is something I've noticed a lot in recent years. My parents subscribe to the NYT, but have been thinking of cancelling it due to, among other things, the pretty...
To discuss the actual topic, this is something I've noticed a lot in recent years. My parents subscribe to the NYT, but have been thinking of cancelling it due to, among other things, the pretty blatant transphobia. IIRC, the NYT don't have a good track record with moral panics in general, also heavily pushing the satanic panic a few decades ago.
The one article I distinctly remember, which wasn't mentioned here, was about bottom surgery for men. They outted a number of private resources, which then had to be taken offline as they were bombarded by transphobes. Security through obscurity doesn't work when a national newspaper needlessly names it and tells people they can go view titillating images there.
Yeah the NYT has a thorough history of being absolutely trash on trans issues, often much more overtly even than in the article discussed here. It's bad enough that my opinion of their coverage...
Yeah the NYT has a thorough history of being absolutely trash on trans issues, often much more overtly even than in the article discussed here. It's bad enough that my opinion of their coverage more generally is pretty low now.
Are you located in EU? I think some sites just throw 403 if they didn’t feel like implementing GDPR protections. Here’s an archive link though: https://archive.is/Uc9JR
Are you located in EU? I think some sites just throw 403 if they didn’t feel like implementing GDPR protections.
I'm in Germany, so it's definitely possible it's some sort of region lock. Most places at least bother to give a custom error message or something though, yeesh.
I'm in Germany, so it's definitely possible it's some sort of region lock. Most places at least bother to give a custom error message or something though, yeesh.
It's important to remind people that the stated aim of controlling who trans athletes can compete against is nothing to do with fairness in sport, and is entirely about making life harder for trans people. It's about elimination of trans people. This is why we call out people who launder the extremist position to be more acceptable to an otherwise liberal audience.
The people who campaign against trans athletes say they're just trying to protect women's rights. But those people have, overwhelmingly often, never said anything about for example rates of pay for women athletes or coaches, rates of sexual abuse in sports and training, availability of facilities, or the disproportionate focus on male sporting events.
And we know they're making anti trans, not pro women, points because the argument is incoherent: trans women apparently retain huge biological advantage thus they win everything they enter, but simultaneously transition is devastating to health and is so harmful we need to ban it. Both can't be true (and it turns out neither is true). This argument that almost any male, no matter their level of training, would win against any female, even elite athletes, is so anti-woman it doesn't need further comment.
I don’t know anything about the health issues and won’t comment on the substance, but to make a technical point about logic, it doesn’t doesn’t follow that “both can’t be true.” Steroid use, for example, both increases athletic performance and has some serious health risks. Some drugs are banned in athletic competitions because they’re effective but risky, and if allowed, more athletes will take them despite the risks.
The difference here is that the argument isn't to ban medical transition only when it comes to sports. The argument is to ban transition entirely. It's why the claims of being concerned about children's well-being do not align with the concerns about "men" invading women's sports.
Of course, the claims about children's well-being do not align with facts anyway.
Yes. It is important to note that these peoples’ arguements are not in good faith. They do not come up with them because it is really what they have reasoned or strongly feel, they bring them up as smokescreens for their actual feelings so they can function in polite society.
Once upon a time it was ok to be against gay rights for the “sanctity of marriage”. Yet strangely domestic partnership laws to give gay people the legal rights of marriage were not popular. It turns out they just hated gay people.
Honestly this is kind of an archaic viewpoint on steroids and most modern PEDs. The science has come quite a long way since the 60s yet the narrative of how dangerous they are has persisted because it's a part of the war on drugs and that it's an easy target for "fairness".
But perhaps more importantly in this particular context, I find it deeply ironic that PEDs are almost never discussed when we talk about trans people in sports. Instead, we talk about the "inherent biological advantage" of people born men and ignore the details. Steroids and PEDs can bring people to supraphysiological levels of testosterone or induce levels of muscle growth and selection not seen in humans naturally, and people are constantly thrown out of competitive sports when they are found out to have used PEDs. Their use is absolutely rampant in sports at high levels of competition, and despite likely being the most important predictor of success, it is ignored in discussions around trans people in sports. Also of note, trans sports discussions always erase trans men who's levels of testosterone might be on the upper end of "normal" physiological levels (and difficult to detect when it may have exceeded into supraphysiological levels, meaning it would be easier for them to abuse PEDs).
Honestly there's so much to unpack in elite level sports it's absolutely wild to me that people have decided their laser focus should be on trans athletes specifically. These sports are not fair and never were fair - they are designed to find the outliers of humans among billions. People who have webbed feet and toes making them faster at swimming. People who have genetically enlarged hearts, allowing them to pump more blood per stroke and outperform in cardio. People who have the genetic predisposition to pack on muscle almost limitlessly because of the way their muscle building protein works (Myostatin-related muscle hypertrophy or MSTN). The very idea that a single characteristic which has nothing to do with genetics or variation could have such a huge impact on sports on this level of play is absurd. It's a house of cards which absolutely crumbles upon even the most minor inspection from nearly any angle.
To discuss the actual topic, this is something I've noticed a lot in recent years. My parents subscribe to the NYT, but have been thinking of cancelling it due to, among other things, the pretty blatant transphobia. IIRC, the NYT don't have a good track record with moral panics in general, also heavily pushing the satanic panic a few decades ago.
The one article I distinctly remember, which wasn't mentioned here, was about bottom surgery for men. They outted a number of private resources, which then had to be taken offline as they were bombarded by transphobes. Security through obscurity doesn't work when a national newspaper needlessly names it and tells people they can go view titillating images there.
(Edited for spelling)
Yeah the NYT has a thorough history of being absolutely trash on trans issues, often much more overtly even than in the article discussed here. It's bad enough that my opinion of their coverage more generally is pretty low now.
I think this link is broken? I get a 403 trying to visit it. Might just be fair.org going down though.
403 is an interesting one! It worked for me, so maybe those issues have cleared up?
Still not working for me, but luckily the archive link ended up working fine for me
Are you located in EU? I think some sites just throw 403 if they didn’t feel like implementing GDPR protections.
Here’s an archive link though: https://archive.is/Uc9JR
I'm in the EU and it's working fine btw.
I'm in Germany, so it's definitely possible it's some sort of region lock. Most places at least bother to give a custom error message or something though, yeesh.