This is really what's key to me. I don't agree with all of the decisions about where and when trans women, trans men, nonbinary folks, and people with hormonal or other intersex sorts of statuses...
These narrow definitions not only harm athletes, but sport itself; when Michael Phelps blows every other swimmer out of the water in a race, we do not think twice about it being his natural gifts (his variations) as an athlete. But when a female runner or boxer does the same, suddenly people begin to jump to conclusions about how “female” they really are.
This is really what's key to me. I don't agree with all of the decisions about where and when trans women, trans men, nonbinary folks, and people with hormonal or other intersex sorts of statuses can play various sports.
But it doesnt matter if someone is assigned female at birth, has XX chromosomes, or the perfect level of hormones in their body... Because when they excel they will still be accused of being a man. This happens even in high school or grade school sports especially when a girl goes through puberty early, or dares to be successful enough at a sport against boys.
The social norm is what the sports division is based on, though. There's isn't like an "ultraman" category for Phelps to belong to instead, so there's not much to talk about. Given that there is a...
The social norm is what the sports division is based on, though. There's isn't like an "ultraman" category for Phelps to belong to instead, so there's not much to talk about.
Given that there is a lot of gray zone in sex, maybe it's just time to not have a "women's" division. No matter what, if you put a dividing line there it'll be arbitrary and unfairly exclude or include some people.
Women's divisions were created in order to further equity. Prior to their creation it was not acceptable for women to be in sports and perhaps more importantly, women's sports did not see the same...
Women's divisions were created in order to further equity. Prior to their creation it was not acceptable for women to be in sports and perhaps more importantly, women's sports did not see the same kind of investment as men's sports. We don't see it as often, but there are sports leagues which target other kinds of backgrounds as well. The elimination of women's divisions would likely result in a general depression of women's performance in sports because people would refocus their efforts back on the top performers, which are still generally male in most sports and may be entirely a reflection of how the majority of sports funding still goes to men. Men are still generally identified for sports at younger ages and receive more overall funding and training than women.
Realistically what we need to do is stop measuring women by a different stick. We also need to re-examine how we are measuring folks. The idea that anything biological can fall into one of two categories - one being acceptable and the other not being acceptable, is ridiculous. The idea that biological advantages don't outweigh performance enhancing drugs is another idea which is also frankly ridiculous but perhaps outside the scope of this discussion (the amount of PEDs someone with a normal heart might need to compete on the same level as someone with an abnormally large heart is something we don't talk about), let alone the discussion of what's detectable "doping" and what isn't (and what quantifies as doping in the first place). All of these discussions need to happen, however, if we are to think more critically about what's "acceptable" in sports.
You need to measure women by a different stick though. The existence of women's leagues necessitates defining what exactly a woman is. Trying to equate how we measure men in men's leagues to how...
You need to measure women by a different stick though. The existence of women's leagues necessitates defining what exactly a woman is. Trying to equate how we measure men in men's leagues to how we measure women in women's leagues is starting from a false premise, because in virtually every sport, there's no advantage to having feminine physiology, but there's a massive advantage to having masculine physiology.
We accept that any natural human biological variation is allowed in men's sports, we, by necessity, don't accept every biological variation in women's sports. It's usually not enough to simply identify as a woman to compete in a women's league, there are biological standards that are applied, which is where this all gets murky.
There are women's leagues in sports where there is very little evidence that men are physiologically advantaged, though. Skeet shooting, for example, was a mixed-sex sport at the Olympics until a...
There are women's leagues in sports where there is very little evidence that men are physiologically advantaged, though. Skeet shooting, for example, was a mixed-sex sport at the Olympics until a woman won gold in 1992, after which point women were banned from participating until a separate women's skeet event was added in 2000. This very obviously isn't a sport in which men have an overwhelming physiological advantage over women, so how could that remotely be the motivation for segregating it by sex?
No one disputes the existence of physical differences at all, but it is simply false to insist that some sort of absolute, scientific analysis of these differences is why we have separate women's leagues in so many sports. Very often this is not due to people trying to split the sexes due to inherent biological advantages but rather the legacy of a history of cultural exclusion from participating in the same venues and leagues as men.
I disagree. Many of these leagues have existed for ages without defining what a woman is. The idea that we need to define a woman in sports is a modern invention. I don't think definitions are a...
The existence of women's leagues necessitates defining what exactly a woman is.
I disagree. Many of these leagues have existed for ages without defining what a woman is. The idea that we need to define a woman in sports is a modern invention. I don't think definitions are a necessary component of their existence or their ability to thrive. This article isn't proposing a "fix" and neither am I. I recognize it's a complicated subject, but I agree with the author that we need to stop and think about the people we're talking about- to humanize them. We also need to recognize how little most people actually know about biology and to question whether the route we are taking is an effective one, let alone one born of compassion.
They existed for ages before any semblance of trans acceptance, well before trans people in general felt comfortable being open, let alone competing in a very public sporting event. There was no...
They existed for ages before any semblance of trans acceptance, well before trans people in general felt comfortable being open, let alone competing in a very public sporting event.
There was no widespread knowledge that just because someone looked like a man or a woman to you, your perceptions may or may not be accurate. That's becoming less the case as time goes on.
This is coming very close to saying "trans women are secret men and their existence justifies trans-vestigating any high-performing female athlete".
There was no widespread knowledge that just because someone looked like a man or a woman to you, your perceptions may or may not be accurate. That's becoming less the case as time goes on.
This is coming very close to saying "trans women are secret men and their existence justifies trans-vestigating any high-performing female athlete".
I think there are two ways to read this. In the first reading, it says that someone who looks like a woman to you may not be because they may be trans(-masc), gender non-conforming, or literally...
There was no widespread knowledge that just because someone looked like a man or a woman to you, your perceptions may or may not be accurate. That's becoming less the case as time goes on.
I think there are two ways to read this. In the first reading, it says that someone who looks like a woman to you may not be because they may be trans(-masc), gender non-conforming, or literally anything other than a cis woman. In the second reading, it says that someone who looks like a woman to you may not be because they may be trans(-fem and thus secretly a man).
Given the context of the conversation — all of the athletes that people wring their hands over are trans women multiple years into their transition and openly femme-presenting if they are trans at all (many are, as the article says, cis but outside "feminine norms") — I can see how sparksbet might read it the second way even though you wrote it intending for it to be read the first way.
I think there’s a third reading, or at least how I interpreted it. Back before the topic of transgender entered the mainstream conversation and more people publicly identified/transitioned as...
I think there’s a third reading, or at least how I interpreted it. Back before the topic of transgender entered the mainstream conversation and more people publicly identified/transitioned as such, a “manly” woman wouldn’t be accused of being trans or “secretly a man” because that possibility wouldn’t have crossed the minds of the vast majority of people in the first place. The only possibilities other than skill and good genetics at that point (in their minds) would be cheating or performance enhancing drugs, same as for the men. There was no real effort to rigorously define the leagues because there were only two genders and it was “obvious”.
It seems inevitable if the sports diision groups are "women" and "men", though, that you have to toss biological organisms into two buckets. How would you get around that? How does one measure...
It seems inevitable if the sports diision groups are "women" and "men", though, that you have to toss biological organisms into two buckets. How would you get around that? How does one measure "woman-ness"?
You can keep the two leagues for historic reasons. Just rename it to like "W" and "M" and say both are open to everyone.
This is really what's key to me. I don't agree with all of the decisions about where and when trans women, trans men, nonbinary folks, and people with hormonal or other intersex sorts of statuses can play various sports.
But it doesnt matter if someone is assigned female at birth, has XX chromosomes, or the perfect level of hormones in their body... Because when they excel they will still be accused of being a man. This happens even in high school or grade school sports especially when a girl goes through puberty early, or dares to be successful enough at a sport against boys.
The social norm is what the sports division is based on, though. There's isn't like an "ultraman" category for Phelps to belong to instead, so there's not much to talk about.
Given that there is a lot of gray zone in sex, maybe it's just time to not have a "women's" division. No matter what, if you put a dividing line there it'll be arbitrary and unfairly exclude or include some people.
Women's divisions were created in order to further equity. Prior to their creation it was not acceptable for women to be in sports and perhaps more importantly, women's sports did not see the same kind of investment as men's sports. We don't see it as often, but there are sports leagues which target other kinds of backgrounds as well. The elimination of women's divisions would likely result in a general depression of women's performance in sports because people would refocus their efforts back on the top performers, which are still generally male in most sports and may be entirely a reflection of how the majority of sports funding still goes to men. Men are still generally identified for sports at younger ages and receive more overall funding and training than women.
Realistically what we need to do is stop measuring women by a different stick. We also need to re-examine how we are measuring folks. The idea that anything biological can fall into one of two categories - one being acceptable and the other not being acceptable, is ridiculous. The idea that biological advantages don't outweigh performance enhancing drugs is another idea which is also frankly ridiculous but perhaps outside the scope of this discussion (the amount of PEDs someone with a normal heart might need to compete on the same level as someone with an abnormally large heart is something we don't talk about), let alone the discussion of what's detectable "doping" and what isn't (and what quantifies as doping in the first place). All of these discussions need to happen, however, if we are to think more critically about what's "acceptable" in sports.
You need to measure women by a different stick though. The existence of women's leagues necessitates defining what exactly a woman is. Trying to equate how we measure men in men's leagues to how we measure women in women's leagues is starting from a false premise, because in virtually every sport, there's no advantage to having feminine physiology, but there's a massive advantage to having masculine physiology.
We accept that any natural human biological variation is allowed in men's sports, we, by necessity, don't accept every biological variation in women's sports. It's usually not enough to simply identify as a woman to compete in a women's league, there are biological standards that are applied, which is where this all gets murky.
There are women's leagues in sports where there is very little evidence that men are physiologically advantaged, though. Skeet shooting, for example, was a mixed-sex sport at the Olympics until a woman won gold in 1992, after which point women were banned from participating until a separate women's skeet event was added in 2000. This very obviously isn't a sport in which men have an overwhelming physiological advantage over women, so how could that remotely be the motivation for segregating it by sex?
No one disputes the existence of physical differences at all, but it is simply false to insist that some sort of absolute, scientific analysis of these differences is why we have separate women's leagues in so many sports. Very often this is not due to people trying to split the sexes due to inherent biological advantages but rather the legacy of a history of cultural exclusion from participating in the same venues and leagues as men.
I disagree. Many of these leagues have existed for ages without defining what a woman is. The idea that we need to define a woman in sports is a modern invention. I don't think definitions are a necessary component of their existence or their ability to thrive. This article isn't proposing a "fix" and neither am I. I recognize it's a complicated subject, but I agree with the author that we need to stop and think about the people we're talking about- to humanize them. We also need to recognize how little most people actually know about biology and to question whether the route we are taking is an effective one, let alone one born of compassion.
They existed for ages before any semblance of trans acceptance, well before trans people in general felt comfortable being open, let alone competing in a very public sporting event.
There was no widespread knowledge that just because someone looked like a man or a woman to you, your perceptions may or may not be accurate. That's becoming less the case as time goes on.
This is coming very close to saying "trans women are secret men and their existence justifies trans-vestigating any high-performing female athlete".
I think you'd actually have to make several very perilous logical leaps to come to that conclusion from what I said
I think there are two ways to read this. In the first reading, it says that someone who looks like a woman to you may not be because they may be trans(-masc), gender non-conforming, or literally anything other than a cis woman. In the second reading, it says that someone who looks like a woman to you may not be because they may be trans(-fem and thus secretly a man).
Given the context of the conversation — all of the athletes that people wring their hands over are trans women multiple years into their transition and openly femme-presenting if they are trans at all (many are, as the article says, cis but outside "feminine norms") — I can see how sparksbet might read it the second way even though you wrote it intending for it to be read the first way.
I think there’s a third reading, or at least how I interpreted it. Back before the topic of transgender entered the mainstream conversation and more people publicly identified/transitioned as such, a “manly” woman wouldn’t be accused of being trans or “secretly a man” because that possibility wouldn’t have crossed the minds of the vast majority of people in the first place. The only possibilities other than skill and good genetics at that point (in their minds) would be cheating or performance enhancing drugs, same as for the men. There was no real effort to rigorously define the leagues because there were only two genders and it was “obvious”.
It seems inevitable if the sports diision groups are "women" and "men", though, that you have to toss biological organisms into two buckets. How would you get around that? How does one measure "woman-ness"?
You can keep the two leagues for historic reasons. Just rename it to like "W" and "M" and say both are open to everyone.