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 3 hours 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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Nope, I’m consistently saying the same thing. When have I said something else?

▲

rdevilla 2 hours 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 2 hours 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