Trans "women" athletes have advantages over cis women

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I don't have a problem with trans "men" competing against men.

You do know you can talk about trans people without using scare quotes, right?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Everyone saying trans women shouldn't be in women's sports, look me in the fucking eye and tell me you give a damn about fairness in women's sports. Tell me that's an actual, legitimate concern for you, and the impetus for your decisions on this. Tell me you've talked to a woman, any woman, about how she feels on this subject.

I feel I care more about trans issues than the common detractor in this thread, and I do feel it's unfair in women's sports.

Well then, I must concede that point at least.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Really, we are in a new age of religious fundamentalism - egalitarian fundamentalism, where equality is not simply an issue of equality before the law, but an implacable denial of any biological differences between human beings. A demand for the slate to be entirely blank, and for any differences to be entirely due to "social constructs" divorced from biology.

It seems to me that this attitude is a far greater threat to science than creationism.

Not every extreme or unpopular viewpoint is "religious fundamentalism." Not every ideology is a Religious ideology. I know we don't see eye to eye on much, but this is really reductive.

[G-Man]

We will let exceptional females compete in male sports, but not males compete in female sports, and really the same principle applies here.

Really? I honestly haven't heard of that happening. Is it an established Best Practice or just an occasional quirk?

Occasional quirk. Mostly, I think, at the high school level.

[Darth Wedgius]

Really, we are in a new age of religious fundamentalism - egalitarian fundamentalism, where equality is not simply an issue of equality before the law, but an implacable denial of any biological differences between human beings. A demand for the slate to be entirely blank, and for any differences to be entirely due to "social constructs" divorced from biology.

It seems to me that this attitude is a far greater threat to science than creationism.

Not every extreme or unpopular viewpoint is "religious fundamentalism." Not every ideology is a Religious ideology. I know we don't see eye to eye on much, but this is really reductive.

It can involve a rejection of mainstream science in favor of a faith-based position. You might not call that a religion, but I think it's within spitting distance.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Really, we are in a new age of religious fundamentalism - egalitarian fundamentalism, where equality is not simply an issue of equality before the law, but an implacable denial of any biological differences between human beings. A demand for the slate to be entirely blank, and for any differences to be entirely due to "social constructs" divorced from biology.

It seems to me that this attitude is a far greater threat to science than creationism.

Not every extreme or unpopular viewpoint is "religious fundamentalism." Not every ideology is a Religious ideology. I know we don't see eye to eye on much, but this is really reductive.

It can involve a rejection of mainstream science in favor of a faith-based position. You might not call that a religion, but I think it's within spitting distance.

You don't need theology to reject mainstream science. We have plenty of secular anti-vaxxers, moon landing conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers and more. That's without even getting into the really weird shit like tree skeptics and time cube.

[Darth Wedgius]

Really, we are in a new age of religious fundamentalism - egalitarian fundamentalism, where equality is not simply an issue of equality before the law, but an implacable denial of any biological differences between human beings. A demand for the slate to be entirely blank, and for any differences to be entirely due to "social constructs" divorced from biology.

It seems to me that this attitude is a far greater threat to science than creationism.

Not every extreme or unpopular viewpoint is "religious fundamentalism." Not every ideology is a Religious ideology. I know we don't see eye to eye on much, but this is really reductive.

It can involve a rejection of mainstream science in favor of a faith-based position. You might not call that a religion, but I think it's within spitting distance.

You don't need theology to reject mainstream science. We have plenty of secular anti-vaxxers, moon landing conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers and more. That's without even getting into the really weird shit like tree skeptics and time cube.

I'd say the same for them, to be fair. It may not be a religion inasmuch as it is a belief of faith, I guess.

Except for time cube, which is totally real.

Edit: I'm not above those. I really, really like to go where the objective data leads, but if somebody were to show me a system of dictatorship that could be proven to better the life of the vast majority of Americans in pretty much every way (unlike real dictatorships, needless to say), but we wouldn't get to choose our politicians or laws any more, I don't know that I would be able to back it. "Democracy is good" is as reflexive for me as breathing.

[Wild_Kraken]

The notion that trans women will somehow come to dominate women's sports simply isn't born out by empirical observation. Trans women didn't just suddenly pop into existence within the last five years. They've existed since forever, and have been playing in women's sports since at least the 1970s with Renée Richards, who did not go on to dominate women's tennis. Her career high ranking was #20. So much for the magical elixir testosterone. Likewise, Fallon Fox did not dominate women's MMA. But her bone density!!!!

This is a case of confirmation bias. It only ever seems to be news worthy when a trans woman wins a sport, so you're not being made aware of all the other women's competitions being won by cis women. This creates the illusion that trans women are some unstoppable force taking over every competition blah blah blah.

[LittleRaven]

The notion that trans women will somehow come to dominate women's sports simply isn't born out by empirical observation. Trans women didn't just suddenly pop into existence within the last five years.

We don't have enough data to say. The trans population is very small. There's not a single state where the percentage of the population that identifies as trans break into the single digits percentage wise. And that's using the latest stats we have - it was considerably smaller in the past.

But that number is rising, so we'll be getting more data soon. We're getting it now. That's why people are suddenly arguing about it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The notion that trans women will somehow come to dominate women's sports simply isn't born out by empirical observation. Trans women didn't just suddenly pop into existence within the last five years. They've existed since forever, and have been playing in women's sports since at least the 1970s with Renée Richards, who did not go on to dominate women's tennis. Her career high ranking was #20. So much for the magical elixir testosterone. Likewise, Fallon Fox did not dominate women's MMA. But her bone density!!!!

This is a case of confirmation bias. It only ever seems to be news worthy when a trans woman wins a sport, so you're not being made aware of all the other women's competitions being won by cis women. This creates the illusion that trans women are some unstoppable force taking over every competition blah blah blah.

I don't think it's taking over or anything. But from what I can tell, from the quote of the woman athlete above, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of any male in the NBA and deciding to walk over to the WNBA. I'm not really trying to argue bad faith here, but when you have two divisions that there's a considerably large physical discrepancy, crossing over based on an authentication that's more centered on social/psychological constructs? I don't see how that's practically different than steroids.