5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season

Been over this. Anyone with a Y chromosome would be in the men’s category. Anyone without a Y chromosome would be in the women’s.

Everyone is eligible to compete in one of the two categories. No one has been “banned from competition”.

You have no response to it, other than to create a word salad about obscure philosophers.
I agree this is the simplest solution to ensure equity and inclusion of all people.
Two categories of competition: 1-XX Division: Only people with XX chromosomes (regardless of current or past Gonad scenario), 2-Open Division: All/Any other combination of Chromosomes (regardless of current or past Gonad scenario).
 
I agree this is the simplest solution to ensure equity and inclusion of all people.
Two categories of competition: 1-XX Division: Only people with XX chromosomes (regardless of current or past Gonad scenario), 2-Open Division: All/Any other combination of Chromosomes (regardless of current or past Gonad scenario).
“Regardless of current or past gonad scenario”

Well the issue here is that ftm is on testosterone which is a performance enhancing drug.

Your scenario is the opposite of what we have now in that the ftm are being forced to compete with the cis men. They used to think this was fine because testosterone would balance things out, but it turns out the scientists were wrong…it doesn’t compensate for not having gone through male puberty.

On the other hand you don’t seem to care that the mtf can not compete against cis men who are on active testosterone. We used to think that if you were post surgery long enough the playing field with cis women would be leveled but it’s turning out the scientists were wrong in at least some sports including swimming, track and the fighting sports.
 
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.
Actually I'm more than happy with my dissonance. I take things on a case-by-case basis and don't follow some political or philosophical narrative where if I believe A, then I must believe B (Crush calls it fence sitting :) ). You're going to have to try harder with your ad-hominems to support your opinions.

I'm not bugged because insults aren't a reflection of me (well unless everyone makes the same claim) but a reflection of those making the insults.
 
Actually I'm more than happy with my dissonance. I take things on a case-by-case basis and don't follow some political or philosophical narrative where if I believe A, then I must believe B (Crush calls it fence sitting :) ). You're going to have to try harder with your ad-hominems to support your opinions.

I'm not bugged because insults aren't a reflection of me (well unless everyone makes the same claim) but a reflection of those making the insults.
That's not intended at all as an insult. Sorry if came off as such. I was just supposing that you might be unhappy with your dissonance. If I'm wrong and you aren't, more power to you...you do you....
 
Can current science tell with any reliability the difference between naturally produced T and artificially produced T?
My understanding is that it can but it's expensive and difficult. The bigger issue with the ftm is their testosterone levels are akin to cis males (but they didn't go through puberty which puts them at a disadvantage re cis males). Hence the veritas can of worms about women with naturally high t, including those equivalent to males. I can see if you don't have a problem with the former (because the telos of the division is just one of categories men and women), why it would be o.k. to put ftm in the cis women's division, but again the question then is why can't a woman with low t be permitted to take a PED to raise her t for purposes of competition
 
My understanding is that it can but it's expensive and difficult. The bigger issue with the ftm is their testosterone levels are akin to cis males (but they didn't go through puberty which puts them at a disadvantage re cis males). Hence the veritas can of worms about women with naturally high t, including those equivalent to males. I can see if you don't have a problem with the former (because the telos of the division is just one of categories men and women), why it would be o.k. to put ftm in the cis women's division, but again the question then is why can't a woman with low t be permitted to take a PED to raise her t for purposes of competition
I not in favor of artificially enhancing or suppressing T for participation in sport. I believe in "come as you are" from a genetic standpoint. Plus I don't think T is a reliable benchmark for the reasons state before.

I will say this in terms of my "philosophy", which may be why you're confused on my positions (which I'm still really not clear on), but I believe in a some cases consistency maybe more important than accuracy. I'm also a big proponent of K.I.S.S. principle. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be aware of potential variables and exceptions, but to design a system for a .016% probability is often inefficient, cumbersome and often has a significantly larger impact on the other 99.84%.
 
I not in favor of artificially enhancing or suppressing T for participation in sport. I believe in "come as you are" from a genetic standpoint. Plus I don't think T is a reliable benchmark for the reasons state before.

I will say this in terms of my "philosophy", which may be why you're confused on my positions (which I'm still really not clear on), but I believe in a some cases consistency maybe more important than accuracy. I'm also a big proponent of K.I.S.S. principle. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be aware of potential variables and exceptions, but to design a system for a .016% probability is often inefficient, cumbersome and often has a significantly larger impact on the other 99.84%.
We've treaded on this before. My objection to this is that while "clarity" is sometimes a valid principle, it's a poor one when it comes to rights (such as the right of a cis woman to participate on a level playing field, or the same right of the ftm or mtf transgender). Rights are concerned with those little remainders, and if we have to accommodate and bend, sometimes we accommodate. The clearest example is the disability laws and all those accessible bathrooms that go unused....we do it, even though the cost is wasteful for something infrequently used, because they have a right to go to the bathroom. Moreover, clarity is not one of the purposes of sports. Indeed, one of the problems with sports is that it is arbitrary....one tweak of the rule and a handball becomes not a handball....lower the hoop and suddenly short people get an advantage in basketball....sports is somewhat of an artificiality even the race sports like track and swimming (what distance...what start). as to "come as you are", what about glasses on a near sighted person, a kid taking hgh, an adhd kid on a stimulant, or an athlete to have a particular expensive shoe or set of golf clubs to give them an edge....all accommodations we allow. As to the t, it renders it all an arbitrary exercises...if a woman wins the race simply because she was born with an unnaturally high testosterone count, there is no virtue in that....it's why the Algerian boxer caused such consternation....it conflicts with the notion of sports being something we should strive to achieve by being the best.....it renders "being the best" without meaning.
 
We've treaded on this before. My objection to this is that while "clarity" is sometimes a valid principle, it's a poor one when it comes to rights (such as the right of a cis woman to participate on a level playing field, or the same right of the ftm or mtf transgender). Rights are concerned with those little remainders, and if we have to accommodate and bend, sometimes we accommodate. The clearest example is the disability laws and all those accessible bathrooms that go unused....we do it, even though the cost is wasteful for something infrequently used, because they have a right to go to the bathroom. Moreover, clarity is not one of the purposes of sports. Indeed, one of the problems with sports is that it is arbitrary....one tweak of the rule and a handball becomes not a handball....lower the hoop and suddenly short people get an advantage in basketball....sports is somewhat of an artificiality even the race sports like track and swimming (what distance...what start). as to "come as you are", what about glasses on a near sighted person, a kid taking hgh, an adhd kid on a stimulant, or an athlete to have a particular expensive shoe or set of golf clubs to give them an edge....all accommodations we allow. As to the t, it renders it all an arbitrary exercises...if a woman wins the race simply because she was born with an unnaturally high testosterone count, there is no virtue in that....it's why the Algerian boxer caused such consternation....it conflicts with the notion of sports being something we should strive to achieve by being the best.....it renders "being the best" without meaning.
Participation in sports is not a right. Also one person's right is sometimes an infringement of someone else's right. At the end of the day we just have a "philosophical" disagreement. I don't believe in artificial interference in sport and you do. But you're right that sports are always being artificially tinkered with, but rarely does it result in an improvement in sport. Bringing this full circle, what is the last change in the soccer rules that improved the game? I'd argue it was the change to the back pass to the keeper rule which was over 30 years ago. The continual change to the handling rules since has been a complete cluster F which has now resulted in defenders playing with there arms behind their back. The new kickoff rules in football, WTF?
 
Participation in sports is not a right. Also one person's right is sometimes an infringement of someone else's right. At the end of the day we just have a "philosophical" disagreement. I don't believe in artificial interference in sport and you do. But you're right that sports are always being artificially tinkered with, but rarely does it result in an improvement in sport. Bringing this full circle, what is the last change in the soccer rules that improved the game? I'd argue it was the change to the back pass to the keeper rule which was over 30 years ago. The continual change to the handling rules since has been a complete cluster F which has now resulted in defenders playing with there arms behind their back. The new kickoff rules in football, WTF?
Participation in sports is absolutely a right. Otherwise the entire rationale for women’s athletics collapses. It’s not as exciting as the men, even if strides have been made interest is still not the same, it’s not as lucrative as the men’s….it is “lesser”. Otherwise throw them all with the men, much less any entitlement to equivalent scholarships. These arguments were all made at the time title ix was put in place to great opposition. That’s been legally asked and answered for a generation now.

The question of conflicting rights is entirely a different one, and a fair question. Conflicting rights though are ubiquitous in society. Your right to build a building on your land blocks my right to light and air. Philosophy is the question of how we resolve these conflicts. But it starts with an acknowledgement that each party does have their rights.
 
Participation in sports is absolutely a right. Otherwise the entire rationale for women’s athletics collapses. It’s not as exciting as the men, even if strides have been made interest is still not the same, it’s not as lucrative as the men’s….it is “lesser”. Otherwise throw them all with the men, much less any entitlement to equivalent scholarships. These arguments were all made at the time title ix was put in place to great opposition. That’s been legally asked and answered for a generation now.

The question of conflicting rights is entirely a different one, and a fair question. Conflicting rights though are ubiquitous in society. Your right to build a building on your land blocks my right to light and air. Philosophy is the question of how we resolve these conflicts. But it starts with an acknowledgement that each party does have their rights.
Btw the Spanish word for law is “derechos” meaning rights. Quite literally the study of conflicting rights, privileges and duties
 
Participation in sports is absolutely a right. Otherwise the entire rationale for women’s athletics collapses. It’s not as exciting as the men, even if strides have been made interest is still not the same, it’s not as lucrative as the men’s….it is “lesser”. Otherwise throw them all with the men, much less any entitlement to equivalent scholarships. These arguments were all made at the time title ix was put in place to great opposition. That’s been legally asked and answered for a generation now.

The question of conflicting rights is entirely a different one, and a fair question. Conflicting rights though are ubiquitous in society. Your right to build a building on your land blocks my right to light and air. Philosophy is the question of how we resolve these conflicts. But it starts with an acknowledgement that each party does have their rights.
It's not a participation right in competitive athletics because its ability dependent, but nevertheless everyone regardless of x and y has the opportunity to play in their respective x and y category given the appropriate ability. There is zero need for a 3rd category.

In terms, of glasses, fancy shoes, etc. reasonable people can easily draw a line between that and biological sex. Most people can tell the difference between an apple and an orange and don't "what if" the shit out of simple scenarios. Allowing glasses is a reasonable allowable accommodation whereas requiring hormone suppressants is not a reasonable requirement. You appear to be ignoring the concept of relativity.
 
I agree this is the simplest solution to ensure equity and inclusion of all people.
Two categories of competition: 1-XX Division: Only people with XX chromosomes (regardless of current or past Gonad scenario), 2-Open Division: All/Any other combination of Chromosomes (regardless of current or past Gonad scenario).
I love this idea.
 
It's not a participation right in competitive athletics because its ability dependent, but nevertheless everyone regardless of x and y has the opportunity to play in their respective x and y category given the appropriate ability. There is zero need for a 3rd category.

In terms, of glasses, fancy shoes, etc. reasonable people can easily draw a line between that and biological sex. Most people can tell the difference between an apple and an orange and don't "what if" the shit out of simple scenarios. Allowing glasses is a reasonable allowable accommodation whereas requiring hormone suppressants is not a reasonable requirement. You appear to be ignoring the concept of relativity.
You were the one that made the argument for clear rules but now are resorting to line drawing. I’m just pointing out the dissonance.

As to the categories I recall you said the reason we don’t throw women in with the men is because there wouldn’t be a level playing field. Throwing the trans into the m category does not produce that level playing field for them and is therefore violative of their rights.
 
You were the one that made the argument for clear rules but now are resorting to line drawing. I’m just pointing out the dissonance.

As to the categories I recall you said the reason we don’t throw women in with the men is because there wouldn’t be a level playing field. Throwing the trans into the m category does not produce that level playing field for them and is therefore violative of their rights.
Clear rules and drawing a line is one in the same for reasonably minded people. Plus I'm drawing a straight line with a Sharpie and not a wobbly line in the sand with my finger.

FTM trans make a choice to exclude themselves from competition by biologically transitioning (but I'm not saying that being trans is a choice). We all make choices in life which may benefit us in some ways and restrict us in others. You said yourself that post-puberty MTF transitions shouldn't be allowed to compete as women, so I guess that makes us both violative of their rights. Having a third competition category doesn't solve that dilemma.
 
Clear rules and drawing a line is one in the same for reasonably minded people. Plus I'm drawing a straight line with a Sharpie and not a wobbly line in the sand with my finger.

FTM trans make a choice to exclude themselves from competition by biologically transitioning (but I'm not saying that being trans is a choice). We all make choices in life which may benefit us in some ways and restrict us in others. You said yourself that post-puberty MTF transitions shouldn't be allowed to compete as women, so I guess that makes us both violative of their rights. Having a third competition category doesn't solve that dilemma.
Yes it does. It provides a place for a level playing field. It’s an accommodation like glasses or adhd meds. You made your choice so too bad so sad is not a reasonable outcome given they are entitled to that level playing field.
 
Yes it does. It provides a place for a level playing field. It’s an accommodation like glasses or adhd meds. You made your choice so too bad so sad is not a reasonable outcome given they are entitled to that level playing field.
Btw implicit in your position is that you don’t think transitioning is a valid option to resolve the condition. Because of it is there’s no dif to glasses or stimulants.
 
Yes it does. It provides a place for a level playing field. It’s an accommodation like glasses or adhd meds. You made your choice so too bad so sad is not a reasonable outcome given they are entitled to that level playing field.
Who else would then qualify the 3rd category? If I'm understanding you correctly it would be MTF post-puberty transitioners and xx DSD's with high T that refuse suppressants. How does that create a level playing field?

While I can appreciate your idealistic attempt to level the playing field, a level playing field is a myth. So yeah guilty as charged, I do fall into the "too bad, so sad" category and I thinks it been clear from my posts.
 
Btw implicit in your position is that you don’t think transitioning is a valid option to resolve the condition. Because of it is there’s no dif to glasses or stimulants.
That's not remotely implicit in my position. Again please stop jumping to conclusions not in evidence. I think in some cases it is a valid option, say in the case of my son's friend. In other cases its not a valid option, as is evidence by the many individuals that have detransitioned. Gender transition surgery (actually called feminization surgery in most medical circles) is experimental and speculative in terms of its "curative" value. Vision correction is not remotely so. Again I think your relativity gauge is not calibrated.
 
Who else would then qualify the 3rd category? If I'm understanding you correctly it would be MTF post-puberty transitioners and xx DSD's with high T that refuse suppressants. How does that create a level playing field?

While I can appreciate your idealistic attempt to level the playing field, a level playing field is a myth. So yeah guilty as charged, I do fall into the "too bad, so sad" category and I thinks it been clear from my posts.
Well at least you are owning it........ o_O

(as to the 3rd category I'd throw in all others including ftm, intersexed, nonbinary low t, low t men, and any genetic xx that want to compete).
 
Back
Top