We have ceded too much ground in this debate. When I say "trans women are women" I mean that, ontologically, it is really true that trans women are a subcategory of the general class "women."

Like you say, we are searching for outliers. We don't cut women that are too strong or too tall. We shouldn't cut out women that happen to be trans. If all the top levels of women's sport end up dominated by trans athletes (something I don't see occurring, and that isn't supported by the data), then good, outliers found. We love to see women succeed.

(To avoid perverse incentives, though, the HRT requirement is critical. Otherwise you have trans women having to choose between being more competitive and receiving necessary medical care.)

▲

appreciatorBus an hour ago | parent [-]

If you are going to insist ontologically that men are women and women are men then words have no meaning and you aren't ceding any ground at all.

▲

bit-anarchist 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

But that's not what they said.

	▲	remarkEon 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes it is. Note the parenthetical. >(To avoid perverse incentives, though, the HRT requirement is critical. Otherwise you have trans women having to choose between being more competitive and receiving necessary medical care.) This is incoherent as an argument. It conditions the category on checking off boxes on a medical treatment list. I hope it's not necessary to explain why this is absurd.