5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
If your in favor of the X and Y test, would you allow an XX to compete with excessive levels of testosterone? (I'm a yes, because if you set a standard I think you should "live and die" by that standard)
Would you allow a MTF adult that transitioned pre-puberty to compete in non-recreational women's sports? (I'm a maybe, but uncomfortable with all the issues with minors transitioning, which I believe should be exceptionally rare).
I would personally say yes to this because you can fix that issue with a T suppressor. She is a biological woman.
For me, it feels uncomfortable because a child would have to make such a significant decision at a young age, which could lead to negative moral consequences in the future. If that young adult later regrets the decision, recognizing that they were too young to have made it, who should bear the blame the child or the parents? However, if the situation arises where the child transitions and, due to hormone suppressants, did not go through male puberty, I would be open to the idea of them competing as a "trans woman" in the women's division. If this can be explained with objective common sense, it's something I could accept.
Yes but I agree the incentives are all wrong. I think we really really don’t want minors transitioning except in very exceptional cases. One way to fix those incentives is to allow a functional route forward where they can still participate in sports so it’s not an all or nothing choice. I think the Europeans also have it right in severely restricting the ability of minors to transition. The effects are permanent and cannot be undone.
You know that's complete bullshit. Everywhere else, but apparently law school, that's considered a strawman. Plus a lot of law isn't about what's "right or wrong"/"true or false" it's what you can get the jury or the adversarial party to believe.
You used to be a good faith debater/poster. Why are you resorting to mischaracterizing people's opinions? You keep telling us to consider all the variables and not to oversimplify things, yet you paint others with a "black and white" characterization of their opinions. (i.e. if you believe A to be true, then B is true)
I miss the old GraceT.
Again I take you back to the bev cart girls. What is their purpose? Is their purpose to flirt with old rich men or is their purpose to be mobile bartenders? If it’s the former it makes no sense to dress you up in a frilly outfit and have you ride around in a pink buggy chatting up old dudes looking for your Mrs degree. If it’s the latter then we don’t have a right to deny you a profession because you can tend bar as well as the next.
Aristotle is kicking himself in his grave btw….
Ahh.. So you want to attack me with the telos of sports... lol Good ole Aristotle would be very proud of you Grace! But let’s not forget, while the purpose of a flute may be to play music, the purpose of sport is Competition, and competition thrives on fairness, as elusive as that concept may seem to you Grace. Sure, fairness might be in the eye of the beholder, but in sports, we attempt to define it with rules that keep the game honest right?
Now, when it comes to creating a third category the 'other et al' category I’m actually for it. It could be a great way to include those who don’t fit neatly into the existing divisions. But let’s also be realistic. Resources are finite, and even with the best intentions, we might not be able to create a separate division for every variation in ability or identity. Still, I believe it’s worth exploring because it offers a potential solution that respects everyone’s rights while preserving the integrity of competition.
As for accommodations, yes, I believe in them where they make sense and don’t fundamentally alter the playing field. ADHD medication, school accommodations these level the playing field without giving anyone an unfair advantage in direct competition. But when it comes to sports, especially in cases where the physical advantages from male puberty are in play, the scales tip too far to simply shrug it off as a birth accident.
So why am I willing to make accommodations in some areas but not here? Because in this arena, fairness or at least our best attempt at it ensures that competition remains meaningful. And if fairness is too abstract, let’s just say I’m advocating for the integrity of the sport. We don’t hand out gold medals for the best flute performance at a piano recital, after all.
Not what I’m doing. I’m testing propositions by expanding the principles to new circumstances. If “having a place to play” even if you can’t realistically compete is fine for one group why isn’t it fine for another. If a marriage contract should not be held up unless it’s in writing why not a real estate contract. If free speech is ok for this one group why isn’t it ok when you disagree with it. I’m not saying you literally think girls should be thrown into the men’s division. I’m point out that’s where the rule you articulated leads to. Because otherwise you are forced to distinguish it
My translator is sad btw: “I miss when you agreed with me”. I miss that too, but unlike some people (ahem), I respect your reasoning
That’s a good argument. Two nits:
There are some accommodations like added time that people object to
We do hand out awards for the best flute and ppiano layers all the time
Is this "right" or "fair" to require someone to take a serious biology changing medication to compete? Did you know that in international track and field that the IAAF testosterone test only applies to women athletes with a DSD condition? Non-DSD women with excessive levels of T are not required to reduce their T with T suppressants. If high T is a performance enhancer than its seems arbitrary to apply the rule to only certain woman. This is not to mention that the level of T that disqualifies someone from competition is subjective. Who gets to decide how masculine is too masculine?
Also the IAAF rules on high T only applies to certain events. For instance it applies to the 400m but not the 200m. For setting rules of competition this just seem far too arbitrary and why I favor a simple X and Y test.
Good points, Grace Added time in sports is a bit like that extra scoop of ice cream, some think it’s a sweet deal, others cry foul over the extra calories. But here’s the thing... it’s a rule applied across the board, so everyone’s still playing the same game, just with a little extra time on the clock.
Now, about those musical awards, I agree we recognize talent across different instruments. But that’s exactly why we don’t have a flutist and a pianist battling it out for the same trophy right? Imagine the confusion if we did...
We keep them in their own categories because even in music, fairness matters.So when it comes to sports, it’s the same principle. We need to keep the lanes clear don’t mix up the sprint with the marathon. And if someone’s bringing a whole new game to the field, maybe it’s time to create a new category, like the ‘other et al’ division. After all, just like we wouldn’t judge a pianist on their flute skills, we shouldn’t throw everyone into the same competition and call it fair. Let’s celebrate everyone’s unique talents just without asking the flutist to win a piano contest you think?
It's just rude. And it was rude when Socrates did it.
Typical Platonic dialogue, with minor modifications:
Athenian: So you see you're being an asshole and ducking the argument?
Socrates: Why yes, I'm being an asshole and ducking the argument.
Athenian: And you understand that the only possible remedy is for you to drink hemlock.
Socrates: Why yes, the only possible remedy is for me to drink hemlock.
Other people can speak for themselves. If you can't defeat their argument on the merits, you just lose. You don't get to reinterpret their argument to some weaker version that you can defeat.
To be honest, @watfly, I wasn’t fully aware of all these nuances, and they definitely add layers of complexity to this issue. But when it comes down to fairness in sports and leveling the playing field, I believe it ultimately becomes a personal choice. Do you want to take the necessary measures to step into the arena?
Rules are rules, and I believe they should remain objective and decisive. I also support giving people options like the choice to take certain drugs to suppress T levels so they can compete but it’s up to each individual to decide whether to take on that risk. It’s similar to how we approach any medication: when you go to the pharmacy, they inform you of all the potential complications, and then you make your choice.
In the end, it’s about weighing the options and deciding what’s right for you, all while understanding the rules that govern the competition.
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no problem with our disagreement, you believe your approach is more comprehensive. I can appreciate that ideal, but what I can't appreciate is you putting words in my mouth. It's irrelevant that you attempt to use philosophers to justify do so. Philosophy isn't an objective "right/wrong", "true/false", it's wholly subjective. In fact, philosophy is primarily political opinion with a more palatable name. You might as well reference JFK or Reagan in your opinion.
Wow Socrates turning in his grave now. I think it's funny you've aligned yourself as Phaedr. Hint: If you are sympathizing with the villain of the piece, it might be you.
It's why "fairness" is sometimes a function of the rules. It's a good point.
T suppressants don't level the playing field.
If you grew in a high T environment, you have advantages from that. You are taller, your hips are narrower, your chest cavity is larger, and your muscles are larger with more nuclei per cell. Those advantages remain even if you reduce T at a later time.
The dif is JFK or Reagan don't use original principles.
Again, it's not putting words in your mouth. Neither I nor anyone believes that you really believe that women should be dumped into the male category. But I'm pointing out to you that's where the rule or principle you articulated leads you to. You also when it came to women articulated a principle that they should have a place where they could compete on a level playing field. I just pointed out that you were extending that to women, but not to the trans individuals. Only you can determine whether you are comfortable with the dissonance that has been pointed out to you. I submit to you you aren't, which is why it's bugging you.
You’re describing the effects of male puberty, and that’s definitely a game changer when it comes to MTF transitions, so its a NO NO. But in the situation where a woman has naturally high T levels within the male range, I believe she should be given the choice to step into the arena by having the option of leveling her levels to the playing field. It’s about fairness, and that includes making sure everyone has the opportunity to compete on equal terms, with the options available to them. Not leveling the playing field here opens the argument for another woman to say then why can I take T and get to her level to equalize the playing field? Because that's called Doping... Doh
Last edited:
One nit: we do sometimes judge pianists against flute players (well not literally but we do things similar)....it's called "America's Got Talent"Good points, Grace Added time in sports is a bit like that extra scoop of ice cream, some think it’s a sweet deal, others cry foul over the extra calories. But here’s the thing... it’s a rule applied across the board, so everyone’s still playing the same game, just with a little extra time on the clock.
Now, about those musical awards, I agree we recognize talent across different instruments. But that’s exactly why we don’t have a flutist and a pianist battling it out for the same trophy right? Imagine the confusion if we did...
So when it comes to sports, it’s the same principle. We need to keep the lanes clear don’t mix up the sprint with the marathon. And if someone’s bringing a whole new game to the field, maybe it’s time to create a new category, like the ‘other et al’ division. After all, just like we wouldn’t judge a pianist on their flute skills, we shouldn’t throw everyone into the same competition and call it fair. Let’s celebrate everyone’s unique talents just without asking the flutist to win a piano contest you think?
My guess is given your desire from bright line rules, you probably have an objection to the subjective sports as "lesser"....gymnastics, ice skating, diving, breakdancing where the East German Judge is free to award a 0.1.
In any case, I admire your propensity to keep your logic when your principles are challenged in other circumstances like the high t. You'd do well as a lawyer or philosopher. I disagree with your assessment of the telos of sport, or of this condition, but admire the consistency and resilience in the logic. Kuddos.
Code
GOLD
What about Seahorses?
Again my issue is that using T as a standard is arbitrary. There are a laundry list of genetic attributes that may give a woman an advantage over other women. Why just choose T. Is there any doubt that Brittany Griner has some male attributes? Her voice is almost deeper than Barry White's. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she had elevated T. I just can't see a good faith reason for her being required to take T suppressants.
I understand your point about it being a choice to take suppressants to compete, but don't you think its a coerced choice? Particularly when others with high T aren't required to take suppressants. The other issue I have is that high T isn't truly the benchmark. It's having high T and being faster or stronger than everyone else. Caster Semenya was only required to take T suppressants to compete in those events that she was faster than everyone in. For events she wasn't faster in, she wasn't required to take suppressants. The T standard is artificial and conditional.