| ▲ | space_fountain 2 hours ago |
| I read the statement as follows: There is a category called woman, it’s defined by something that’s identify related. Sports should only be segregated by this category, except that to remove perverse incentives it’s reasonable to require hrt I’m unclear on what you find absurd about this? |
|
| ▲ | appreciatorBus 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > There is a category called woman, it’s defined by something that’s identify related. But that’s not how it’s defined. People have been using that word in every language humans ever invented for thousands of years to mean biological female. If you want to argue that there is something else that isn’t biological sex and you want to invent a word for it, go nuts, but “woman” is already defined. Words can and do change definitions over time, of course. If it’s your contention that the definition by consensus has already changed, say so, but there are billions of people on this earth who haven’t got the message, which seems odd for something determined by consensus of the people who use language. Putting that aside, since sports are about physicality and accomplishing things in the real world, it makes no sense to base them on “identity” - something that cannot be detected or defined by anyone but the self identifier - rather they should be based on physical aspects of reality. |
| |
| ▲ | space_fountain an hour ago | parent [-] | | I’m not defending this definition, but I will point out that gender has never been about the chromosomes you were born with. It has been about how people around you perceived you and people often have overly simplistic ideas about exactly what that meant. Plus it’s totally normal for words to have more technical detail than they first appeared. The idea of a sex binary doesn’t fully exist so we’d need something to deal with that anyway. I personally support segregation based on hormones as the fairest option available. Otherwise if you use purely a genetic test there are plenty of women with high t levels without an sry gene and no one disputes that high t levels confer a biological advantage in many sports | | |
| ▲ | bit-anarchist an hour ago | parent [-] | | Going even further back, gender denoted, originally, a linguistical construct associated with sex but not strictly dependent on it, as seen on romance languages like Spanish, Portuguese, etc. [1] There, words have their own gender and, sometimes, the gender of the word and the sex/social gender of the subject may disagree. Ex.: "ant" in Spanish is "hormiga", but this noun is exclusively feminine with no masculine form. [1] https://etymologyworld.com/item/gender |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rdevilla 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This implies that males who identify as women but do not undergo HRT are not women in the context of sports (and their gender in other contexts remains ill defined, especially in the absence of perverse incentive). This is a form of misgendering, which is what we were trying to avoid in the first place. This is a position that one could take up, but it comes
at a steep cost. It holds the societal acceptance of
transgenderism hostage to a biological account of
sex-gender. This is problematic for several reasons.
Moreover, it is worth highlighting the problems with
suggesting that sex, as biologically based, determines
the gender with which one psychologically identifies
[...] Second, whatever criterion is offered to ground
this similarity would inevitably disqualify many women,
for not all women share the same hormone levels,
reproductive capacity, gonadal structure, genital
makeup, and so on. (Tuvel 2017)
|
| |
| ▲ | space_fountain an hour ago | parent [-] | | Again I don’t take it be saying that. It’s saying that encouraging women to be forced to be in emotional distress to succeed at sport is problematic so we should require hrt so that elite sport doesn’t require trans women to skip hrt | | |
| ▲ | rdevilla an hour ago | parent [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47538165 Such a common pattern, I'm tired of seeing it. "That's not what it's saying, those words actually mean..." again and again, ad infinitum. A perverse form of moving the goalposts. Your reply has no relation whatsoever to what was previously stated, it is a new argument entirely. | | |
| ▲ | space_fountain an hour ago | parent [-] | | Nope, I’m consistently saying the same thing. When have I said something else? | | |
| ▲ | rdevilla an hour ago | parent [-] | | > It’s saying that encouraging women to be forced to be in emotional distress to succeed at sport is problematic This was never said by anyone until you came along with that comment, which is a totally different idea (effectively a non sequitur). Can you quote who echoed the same argument? | | |
| ▲ | space_fountain 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I said "Sports should only be segregated by this <gender identity> category, except that to remove perverse incentives it’s reasonable to require hrt" That was trying to elaborate on citruscomputing's argument where they said "Otherwise you have trans women having to choose between being more competitive and receiving necessary medical care." I'm rephrasing those two points. Apologies if I initially described that badly, but I'm just restating the perverse incentive they were talking about |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | remarkEon an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This part: >except that to remove perverse incentives it’s reasonable to require hrt "I took a drug, therefore I am now a woman" is not a reasonable position to hold. The debate starts out with one based on an identity, and then in the very next formulation reduces that identity to which medicines you take. |
| |
| ▲ | space_fountain an hour ago | parent [-] | | No, but that’s not what the statement is saying. It’s arguing that we should add the minimum restrictions we can to the women’s sports category and that hormones might be a reasonable one |
|