Do you consider Caitlyn to be an authority on this question. Why/not? — Edy

It's weird to use the term "authority" here, because it specifically invokes the argument from authority fallacy. Now it's only a fallacy in a deductive context, which this is not. But in the context it seems more apt to ask whether Caitlyn Jenner has relevant knowledge or experience for the topic at hand.

Depending on the way you frame the debate, being an olympic gold medalist might constitute relevant experience. The question is how fairness is resolved here. Is fairness about average muscle mass, about the experience of the athletes or about the experience of the spectators? Caitlyn Jenner has relevant experience for (at least) one of these dimensions.

P.S.: This is unrelated, but the plural of "woman" is "women".

Well Caitlyn Jenner is a narcissistic meathead, not sure why anyone would want to listen to her regardless of topic. She would be an authority on winning gold medals and being a champion perhaps but trans issues? No.

I’m got a better question, why would you need to be a gold medalist in order to be an “authority” on whether or not trans men should compete in women leagues?
Anyone not blinded by ideology can see the problem. All you have to do is look at how badly women’s world records are being shattered every time a trans male competes in women’s leagues of any and all sports. All you have to do is talk to some of these women who have worked their whole lives to achieve peek performance only to have less skilled and less dedicated trans men come in and use their huge physical advantage to take a dump on the women’s sport/league and every woman in it. All you need to do is look at the numbers...mediocre competitors become champions when they switch to a woman’s league.

If a trans male actually cares about women then they should stay out of the women’s leagues. To do otherwise is an affront.
If you think biological males do not have a tremendous physical advantage that compromises a women’s sport and any integrity or honour of the women in that sport then I’m sorry to tell you that you’ve lost your fucking mind. Time to reevaluate.

Caitlyn is a gold medalist olympian, And a trans woman who went all the way and had surgery. Regardless, cancel culture rears its ugly head and seeks to end Caitlyn. — Edy

I remember the 1976 Olympic Games vividly, how much I admired Jenner. I always saw her, he then, as the epitome of what a good athlete should be. My beef with her is not her transition, it's that she has commodified it, celebritized it, and used it as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. She's a fucking Kardashian for God's sake.

I'm not interested in discussing the trans politics here. — Edy

Fail.

Right?! She is clueless on trans, ignorant. You just have to listen to one of the god awful interviews celebrating her to realize it’s more about celebrity, spotlight and attention seeking than anything else.

If you think biological males do not have a tremendous physical advantage that compromises a women’s sport and any integrity or honour of the women in that sport then I’m sorry to tell you that you’ve lost your fucking mind. — DingoJones

My initial response to this issue was to agree with you, but I was surprised to see that the issue was contested even within the Republican Party. To me, that means it isn't necessarily a knee-jerk issue. This is from a recent Washington Post article:

Before 2010, few college or high school athletic associations had policies on transgender athletes, according to a report published that year by the Women’s Sports Foundation and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Noting that “an increasing number of high school and college-aged young people are identifying as transgender,” the report proposed a set of policies: In college sports, transgender women should undergo one year of hormone therapy before competing against other women, a rule rooted in scientific research that suggested such an approach would mitigate any athletic benefits. The NCAA quickly adopted the policy.

For high schools, the report recommended letting transgender girls compete in sports as soon as they transition socially and begin dressing and acting in accordance with their gender identity. Requiring hormone therapy for adolescents is potentially harmful

This makes a lot of sense to me.

The political side of the Trans debate, is rather messy, and awaits further scientific clarification... I'm not interested in discussing the trans politics here. — Edy

That's where the problem lies. Science is clear that in physical competitions especially at top level a biological female is not the same as a biological male. So the issue seems to be political. Politics decides how science is applied.

You have to look closer at that research. I understand they are trying to make policy but a year of hormone therapy doesn’t even the playing field by a long shot.
The data just doesn’t support that research, it’s politically driven research.
What makes sense to me would be a trans league, or an open league of some kind.

The data just doesn’t support that research, it’s politically driven research. — DingoJones

It came from women athletes supportive of women's sports trying to find a compromise. I don't see a political agenda beyond trying to figure out the best thing to do. As for the scientific answer to the question, I don't know and I don't intend to spend more time figuring it out. It appears that there is a possible compromise, whether or not this is exactly the one.

If you think biological males do not have a tremendous physical advantage that compromises a women’s sport and any integrity or honour of the women in that sport then I’m sorry to tell you that you’ve lost your fucking mind. Time to reevaluate. — DingoJones

An open question in schools. (Be good enough to observe I did not say a settled question in the schools.) In my opinion, girl/boy is a perfectly good way to divide, and that's an end of it. But statistics muddy the water. In the schools, trans-boys apparently have no edge in respect of being boys.

My own view is that childhood and adolescence are the times when things happen or are tried out willy-nilly. The boy who grows six inches in six months with other attendant changes. The tom-boy girl, a fantastic child athlete, who in a year becomes a curvaceous young woman. The crime, it seems to me, is to allow any child/young adult, to foreclose on his or her options and potential by making non-reversible changes. Will they make his/her life easier? Maybe at the moment, but at what cost? The difficulties of life aren't, usually, to be evaded but rather got through, even with appropriate assistance. Trans-culture may have some good in it - it's more than I know - but it clearly has great potential for harm. Perhaps greatest is to encourage children to wish they were other than they are, to be something they are not and cannot ever really be.

That's where the problem lies. Science is clear that in physical competitions especially at top level a biological female is not the same as a biological male. So the issue seems to be political. Politics decides how science is applied. — Apollodorus

A!!!

Indeed. Kind of like climate change. I've always said we need to have both far-right and far-left/ wing scientists engage in town hall debates, and duke it out until some consensus is reached. Kind of like the jury system. :smile:

That said, gosh, knowing that he/she is now running (no pun intended) for Governor of CA., if I had a choice between politics or trans-gender stuff, I see the latter as being more relevant and in her wheelhouse. Mainly because based on a recent TV interview, his/her knowledge of politics (or lack thereof)…. well let's just say that there really wasn't any knowledge there....I was astounded. I don't know, I guess in politics stranger things have happened.

All that aside, I agree, that basically the biology should be the criterion.

Caitlyn Jenner hits from the woman's tee in women's golf tournaments. Maybe she's not the best person to ask after all.

https://golf.com/news/caitlyn-jenner-holes-out-for-eagle-at-ana-inspiration-pro-am/

Science is clear that in physical competitions especially at top level a biological female is not the same as a biological male. — Apollodorus

At top levels of competition, but not in the schools. E.g., the best arm-wrestler in my JHS (of about a thousand students) eighth-grade class was a girl.

It came from women athletes supportive of women's sports trying to find a compromise. I don't see a political agenda beyond trying to figure out the best thing to do. — T Clark

Trying to find a compromise IS a political agenda in this case. They are trying to defend their sports from the total compromise of fairness and integrity. If it wasn’t political then they would just keep things the way they are and trans men wouldn’t be competing with women. It’s only because they are responding to a political agenda that they need to compromise in the first place. Know what I mean? The best thing to do would be to keep trans men out, and only by indulging political pressure would you consider not doing that.
If you still have doubts and don’t have the energy for a deep dive then just look at combat sports and what’s been going on there with trans athletes. Mediocre male league fighters become champions in the women’s league. It would be a joke except it’s horrifying to watch a trans male beat the shit out of a woman like a domestic abuse victim. Like I said (not directed at you but in general btw) if you disagree that trans men have a huge physical advantage then you’ve lost your mind and need to rethink.
One day science may help change that when the natural biology can truly be be evened out with treatments but we aren’t there yet and as far as I can tell the research has more political basis than science.

“It appears that there is a possible compromise, whether or not this is exactly the one.“

I’m not so sure there is a rational compromise for the reasons stated above...what did you think of the idea of a trans league?

Every once in a while you need to be reminded not to bother addressing me. I have nothing to say to you, I consider you a bad actor (dishonest and foolish) with whom it is pointless to engage. Stop wasting your time.

You always have the freedom to advise me of the error of my ways, which is a service. Lacking that, yours just invective and insult, a waste. At the same time, if you take up residence as a target, then a target you are, as are most of us. As you offer no substance, I assume I'm making good points.

let's just say that there really wasn't any knowledge there....I was astounded. — 3017amen

Well, that seems to be the direction society is taking or is pushed these days. "Government by celebrity activists" who, having achieved fame in their own field, feel that the White House should be their next job for which they posses more than enough qualifications ....

the best arm-wrestler in my JHS (of about a thousand students) eighth-grade class was a girl. — tim wood

I don't dispute that. But maybe she was training harder or her hormones allowed her to grow more muscle mass or something. There could be all kinds of explanations. But it does sound like an exception.

Authority is a strong word I guess. At the very least, I mean, someone worth listening too.

But I used the term purposely, to consider and compare, who does have authority on the issue.

Science or scientists have nothing to do with fairness in sports. Thus have no authority, in comparison to Caitlyn. Although, we have enough trans examples to make scientific statements like, trans athletes dominate female sports. We have Biologists, but we don't have sportologists.

Politicians have nothing to do with fairness in sports either. We have sports commissions, run by people who are experienced in most elite sports. Luckily most of them like to segregate by sex.

Then there's Sarah Silverman, who went on a big rant about Caitlyns statement. She's leading the cancel culture front, and criticises Caitlyn, saying things like, trans woman are real woman and Caitlyn should know that. Sarah, an actor and comedian who knows absolutely nothing about elite athletes or trans peoples oppression.

Between Richard Dawkins, Sarah Silverman and Caitlyn Jenner, I ask, who has authority when discussing trans sports. For me it's a no brainer. But it's interesting to see peoples ignorance when considering this question... As if Sarah is the authority here.

Can trans activists think of a higher authority. Or is their agenda fuelled solely on feelings.

what did you think of the idea of a trans league? — DingoJones

Why would anyone possibly watch? Why watch former "mediocre male league fighters?"

Careful you lot.

If you're arguing about whether, eg, testosterone level and natal sex are in any way determinative of sports performance and the relationship of that to whether trans women should be in the women's division in elite sports... That's one thing.

If you're arguing that, say, trans women shouldn't be in the women's division in elite sport because "trans women aren't real women", that's transphobia.

The problem isn't the inference or the conclusion of segregation by natal sex, the problem is... "trans women aren't real women", level up your nuance people, or be moderated accordingly.

Are we allowed to talk about what it means to say “trans women are not real women”?
Not being snide.

Are we allowed to talk about what it means to say “trans women are not real women”? — DingoJones

Yes, in the same manner you're allowed to talk about and reference sexism or racism. :D

Well there are already well watched sports that feature mediocre athletes (compared to the top ones) right? Different divisions get different viewerships with the most elite athletes getting the most viewership. I’m not sure why it would be different with a new open league or trans league. Friends, family etc...all the people that fill the bleachers at non-trans, non-top pro sports games.

Predictable, that reactionary attacks on the person are the mainstay of those who feel their gender identity threatened.

Ok, so what does it mean to say that? If someone is trying to make a distinction between biological women and trans men/women it can be semantically confusing, Calling the biological woman a “real” woman is one way of doing that. I understand that a transphobic person would use that term in a derogatory sense but surely intention matters here?

Calling the biological woman a “real” woman is one way of doing that. I understand that a transphobic person would use that term in a derogatory sense but surely intention matters here? — DingoJones

Why are you asking me to clarify the distinction, which you seem to understand, rather than those present whose intentions matter more?

I'm gonna step out, now.

Your views are the ones that matter to my inquiry because you are the one who will decide which such distinctions will result in being banned.

Your views are the ones that matter to my inquiry because you are the one who will decide which such distinctions will result in being banned. — DingoJones

If someone won't show the due nuance-fu to say something like: "Going through the puberty associated with male natal sex might render an unfair advantage to trans women in elite competitive sports" vs "trans women shouldn't be allowed in women's divisions because they're not real women", then I don't see why I should interpret something which is indistinguishable from transphobia as if it had good intent.

I can't chart out necessary and sufficient conditions, or contexts, for phrases to be prejudicial for you. A rule of thumb might be - does the post deny that trans women are women or rely upon that in the argument?

I will be much more suspicious of claims that don't articulate the issue precisely, if you're going to make a hot take which I can't easily distinguish from transphobia - and that's a low bar - expect it to be deleted. If you want to have this kind of discussion, get your nuance on.

If someone won't show the due nuance-fu to say something like: "Going through the puberty associated with male natal sex might render an unfair advantage to trans women in sport" vs "trans women shouldn't be allowed in women's divisions because they're not real women", then I don't see why I should interpret something which is indistinguishable from transphobia with good intent. — fdrake

I can’t see where anyone said that, or made that argument. Is lack of nuance bigotry? Again, doesn’t intention matter? It doesn’t seem like it’s that difficult to ask some probing questions before determining whether someone is a bigot or not. Maybe if it’s so so easy for phrasing to be indistinguishable from transphobia there is a problem with how loosely you define transphobia?

I can't chart out necessary and sufficient conditions, or contexts, for phrases to be prejudicial for you. A rule of thumb might be - does the post deny that trans women are women or rely upon that in the argument? — fdrake

Well it gets really important for you to chart things out a bit when “lack of nuance” and poor phrasing will get someone banned.
I mean...you do realize the irony of moderating someone for lack of nuance while explicitly refusing to use nuance in determining whether or not they are transphobic, right?
I’m not trying to be difficult but that’s a bit rich.

I will be much more suspicious of claims that don't articulate the issue precisely, if you're going to make a hot take which I can't easily distinguish from transphobia - and that's a low bar - expect it to be deleted. If you want to have this kind of discussion, get your nuance on. — fdrake

Ya that’s not a very nuanced approach, I don’t think it’s that low a bar if what’s been said so far qualifies. I haven’t detected any transphobia, have you? (Again, not a snide comment)
At least it’s deleted comments, I thought you were about to drop the ban hammer.
Thanks for responding, I do appreciate your efforts.