Submitted by BudsKind802 t3_1133zhb in vermont
[deleted] t1_j8rjrev wrote
Reply to comment by mellercopter in Northfield's Police Chief Takes Flak for His Provocative Public Stances by BudsKind802
I actually focus on that as well. I believe we need to be much harsher on people who commit sexual abuse.
The idea that anyone who thinks "perhaps a women's sports league is a good thing" is an insane bigot is nonsense.
mellercopter t1_j8rmiux wrote
Women's leagues do exist, we don't need you to advocate for them. They're already here. You keep mentioning sports teams with trans women specifically and implying that they are unsafe but don't seem to be concerned about trans men competing. I've watched female rugby players absolutely demolish fully padded football players so let's not pretend like it's not possible for genders to fairly compete. Considering most female athletes are not paid equitably, treated with the same respect, or provided with the same resources I don't think that most of them would be worried about trans athletes impeding their ability to make a career in sports. Maybe your energy would be better spent in pushing equity regardless of gender if you'd like to further parity in women's sports.
If you really truly do care, then start advocating for folks to focus on better protections for people from things that are actually dangerous, which to this point in this thread you have actually yet to do. It's not about the safety of your daughters or your wives, if it was making sure they aren't interacting with trans women wouldn't be high or on your list of priorities at all. Half the time people (myself included) can't even clock if a person is trans or not, because honestly really what does it matter to you. And for the love of whatever god you may believe in, stop speaking FOR us or OVER us. We can communicate our concerns just fine on our own.
[deleted] t1_j8s5jde wrote
> Women's leagues do exist, we don't need you to advocate for them.
The entire premise of the discussion is that people want to open up women's leagues for males.
>but don't seem to be concerned about trans men competing
Because in general people who are biologically female will not be competitive in a mens league. Also if they are on T that is a banned substance.
> don't think that most of them would be worried about trans athletes impeding their ability to make a career
I'm in a running club and train with some very competitive women. I think that is insane to believe that someone who is running 60 miles a week or more just wouldn't mind losing their spot. The idea that someone could train for 6 months for a race and wouldn't mind losing that spot to an athlete with a bio male body is not reasonable.
I also race skimo, where there is a strong mtf trans athlete competing for a spot on next year's national team. She is a great athlete but if she gets in the top 3 for the specific division, that means a female athlete who competed will not get the spot.
>If you really truly do care, then start advocating for...
I'm interested in sports. It is ok to talk about issues in sports even though there are more pressing issues in the world.
mellercopter t1_j8sgni1 wrote
I don't know what article you read, but the premise of the discussion had nothing to do with opening women's leagues to anyone. It has to do with a cop advising via a public newspaper that a 14 year old should be charged with voyeurism under the guise of keeping children safe for utilizing a locker room that they were legally permitted to use under state law.
To address your other concerns, testosterone testing in sports is not an accurate measure for cis or trans people as is evidenced by the Olympics continued disqualification of African women from track and field because their natural testosterone levels were testing "too high" for females. There is no standard for what a person's testosterone should be if they are male or female as it is largely dependent on the individual and the time of testing. Women's testosterone levels fluctuate throughout the day and throughout their cycles. Additionally trans men are and have been competitive in men's sports and the same goes for trans women, both before and after transition. Here's a great link to some examples: 25 Transgender Athletes You Should Know
I'm not sure if it's intentional, but when you say that a trans woman could take a spot from a female athlete you are implying that trans women aren't women. I would encourage you instead of making assumptions about how these women might feel, maybe have discussions with them first. I could not imagine being so entangled with a recreational sport that I would feel the need to ostracize and individual or group simply trying to participate in societal norms. If you are an athlete who's in it to compete against other people and win rather than to compete against yourself and improve I would imagine you're not gonna have a good time most of the time and you're probably not super fun to be around.
The idea of a gender binary is not only biologically inaccurate, but also culturally was only introduced through colonization. Trans men and women are revered in a large number of indigenous groups, including Native Americans. While it's fine to have talk about sports, the origins of the discussion were an article where a person in a position of power was openly supporting criminalizing a teenager who is already at a high risk of being a target of violence. It also serves to ignite a conversation about an issue that doesn't exist, implying that trans women and girls are dangerous and predatory. VT is not a state in a vacuum, Fern Feather was killed less than a year ago.
[deleted] t1_j8t640j wrote
I didn't say anything about testosterone levels in female athletes. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am specifically talking about allowing biological males, which have a long established physical advantage, to compete in biological female divisions.
>I'm not sure if it's intentional, but when you say that a trans woman could take a spot from a female athlete you are implying that trans women aren't women.
No, I am working on the fact that they are not female. In each event in track and field, on the olympic level, each country sends three male and three female athletes.
I literally have competed against a trans athlete in Vermont that is trying to get one of the three spots in this sports national under 20 women's team. If she achieves it, the national team will have to bump whoever was the third best female in this sport that year. This would mean that in this sport we will have 4 males now and just 2 females.
>The idea of a gender binary is not only biologically inaccurate
My friend, to reproduce humans need exactly one male and one female. Birth defects are NOT related to the concept of transgender and do not inform this debate at all.
>Fern Feather was killed less than a year ago.
This is honestly a ridiculous tactic. I am only speaking about the push to allow males into previously female only spaces. In no way does talking about this argue that we should kill people.
It is shocking how any discussion about the role of sex in society goes... if you even discuss it activist types will say that your discussion is causing murders.
mellercopter t1_j8t9k8c wrote
You spoke of using testosterone being unallowable in sports, which is false. Try reading the article I linked and you will see examples of Olympians who have transitioned hormonally and have competed after transition.
You talk about biological sex as if there are only two which is scientifically (not socially) false as is the idea of a gender binary (again scientifically and in this case socially as well).
You refer to trans people based on your perception of their biological sex which is terfy. In order to reproduce you need a person with a uterus who is capable of carrying a fetus to term, and a fertilized egg, good old science has shown you don't require sperm so your male and female requirement is inaccurate.
Referring to genetic conditions as birth defects is also incorrect.
It's not a ridiculous tactic to site the death of a marginalized community member who lived in the geographical vicinity of the same marginalized group you are reducing to genitalia. There is no push to allow men in female spaces, you're not welcome and we don't want you there. But I will welcome any trans woman who is interested with open arms.
We are discussing gender, not sex. And I have not once said that simply discussing it leads to murders, but I did say that we don't live in a vacuum in VT and our community isn't immune to the type of violence that is perpetrated against this community around the world just because VT is "progressive". Words matter, they guide action and bothering and excluding individuals absolutely leads to violence. Whether it is external or self inflicted. But enjoy your runs, cause honestly that's the top priority here right?
[deleted] t1_j8tbso7 wrote
> In order to reproduce you need a person with a uterus who is capable of carrying a fetus to term, and a fertilized egg, good old science has shown you don't require sperm so your male and female requirement is inaccurate.
lmao this is clownish. Name one person who was born from a female with no sperm fertilizing the eggs. Human reproduction requires the two sexes to combine.
>You talk about biological sex as if there are only two which is scientifically
There are in fact just two sexes. Plenty of people have deformities but in terms of species normal reproduction, it requires a male and female. In typical development without any genetic issues or deformities there are just two sexes. Denying basic facts like that is just silly.
>We are discussing gender, not sex
See you aren't listening very well. When parents are concerned about their daughters competing against males they are talking about sex. Gender is a set of beliefs and behaviors that people engage in... this isn't about whether you wear long hair or not, it's about biology. Males and females are different and the differences are real.
mellercopter t1_j8tgoyf wrote
It is very apparent you don't work in a scientific field, that your opinions (which is what you keep insisting are facts) are not based in any reality where research exists and that you are singularly fixated on continuing to repeat absolute garbage in the hopes that you're gonna stumble on a gotcha. You're right, I'm not listening because you're not talking you're writing. See how words are important. Again, if you weren't informed someone was trans in a lot of instances you would never know. It's not about sex it's about the gender you perceive someone to be and there are plenty of cis women that are in sports that you would likely label as trans using your dated assessment of what a woman should present as. Here's 75% of the work done for you, in case you don't read them one article states that trans women do not in fact dominate women's sports when they participate, in fact they lose quite often. I hope you read at least some of it and with that I'm all set on entertaining your drivel.
What do we mean by sex and gender
The idea of 2 sexes is overly simplistic
Scientists create human embryo without sperm
Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime
[deleted] t1_j8thqnh wrote
Ok can you give me an example of someone who was born without any sperm being involved? You literally said that you don't need a sexual binary to reproduce and I'm very curious.
Your example of an embryo is very interesting for treating some diseases but is not in any way reproduction without the sexual binary.
In terms of sport I appreciate Scientific American as a pop culture science mag but it isn't a research study. The article you talk about makes a normative argument for your position.
This one makes an objective argument about the advantage males have. It's also an actual research paper, not a magazine link.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3
Also the articles on intersex are irrelevant. That is a physical condition that is abnormal. Transgender is a mental state with no physical basis.
mellercopter t1_j8tszwf wrote
I appreciate your willingness to engage in a good faith dialogue, sincerely.
What I said was that sperm is not needed in order to reproduce, but that you needed a fertilized egg and a uterus to grow it in. And it isn't currently needed in a ton of species and is very close to becoming a reality for humans. The research in the UK was primarily focused on creation of non-viable embryos which could be culled for stem cells which would allow for regeneration of specified cells for healing damaged tissues, regrowing tissues, treatment of ALS, Parkinson's, cancer, etc.
The focus of a 10 year Israeli study veers towards reproduction without both sperm and an egg to address all of the goals of the UK study as well as to eventually assist with the declining human population. They literally grow tiny artificial testicles in microchips which then produce sperm. They've been working on growing embryos in petri dishes and the mouse embryos have hearts and tails, they are mice. They are working on growing the synthetic embryos outside of a uterus in and artificial womb. It sounds scary, but so does one Professors recent propositions to start using brain dead women as incubators labeled whole body gestational donation. I would personally prefer matrix babies to my corpse being used as a greenhouse for humans, but I think it's also worthwhile looking into why fewer women want kids.
Your article on trans women in sports (btw there is a corrected version which outlines additional background to clarify potential conflicts of interest) outlines what the authors believe performance should look like based on testosterone suppression during transition. The article I linked was the results of actual outcomes of women's sports competitions including trans competitors and the actual outcomes demonstrate that the predicted outcomes and assumptions (word used by the authors) were not accurate to real world results.
So while hormones indicate that trans women should have an advantage, they don't perform as anticipated. Assuming someone is going to be good at a physical activity based on their physical appearance is a misnomer that also impacts cisgender athletes. Im old as shit, but Muggsy Bogues would be an armrest for me and he was an amazing ball handler. There are other factors than hormones and physique. So good news, your concerns about women getting obliterated by trans women in sports on the whole are unfounded. The original article I linked outlined several instances where trans women underperformed in comparison to women even in sports which are considered to be male dominated like weightlifting.
I think you truly believe that you are doing women a service by defending women only spaces, but I also think you are underestimating what women as a whole are capable of, and what spaces need defending. We do need men who are willing to step in and be a voice in defense of women (all women) especially in conversation with other men, but we don't need to be defended in sports from trans women. What we really need is more people in general to start raising their boys to be and do better when it comes to their treatment and perception of women. The greatest harm to women, including trans women, are the boxes we are continually expected to squeeze into by others.
I urge you to do some more research on the negative impacts of trans exclusion on both trans and cisgender kids and adults. I am happy to provide some insights based on research, but also maybe consider learning about the lived experiences of trans people in your community.
[deleted] t1_j8weubn wrote
>you needed a fertilized egg
So you are saying without cutting edge science, in the context of homo sapians the animal, we need two sexes to reproduce?
>So while hormones indicate that trans women should have an advantage, they don't perform as anticipated.
The RESEARCH ARTICLE I sent indicates the opposite. Please read it! This controls for selection bias we see in non controlled samples. It is extremely extensive.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments