'Trans' a book about transactivism

What have I missed? Ooh if you don’t agree with X, she will query if your feminism is valid.
Have just had an email response from the people who run the local swimming teams/squad at the gym.
I asked whether they raced boys against girls and if not, why not?
>“Even from around age 8, some boys’ muscles begin to develop faster, making them stronger swimmers.
If you look at times, which we have to do for competitions, some girls have times that are equal or faster than the boys, but using that would often mean one girl against 5 boys. I don’t want to get into mental health here but it needs to be considered.
In training, where children are grouped by speed and swim in a loop, boys and girls often swim together. However some boys are more aggressive swimmers and faced with a girl who is faster, they will use strategies to make life difficult for the girls
The lesson or practice then becomes a lesson in manners.”<
Trisher, your idea of banning transwomen is even more unfair. Better to let them race in a class against each other, than ban them.
I’m going to reiterate here
If transwomen really want to be women, they would support the rights of natal women before insisting their own rights override them.
I’m becoming less surprised that so many women support men’s rights over women’s whilst talking about feminism.

I can see that it's a lot simpler to say "ban transwomen", as if that would solve the problem, than to admit the problem is bigger and other solutions are required. And actually people have said that it is all the fault of transwomen. Which is pretty similar to saying it doesn't matter and banning transwomen would solve it. I'm simply pointing out it won't.

Right, but what has any of that got to do with not wanting males to compete against females in sport?

Can't you see that supporting one thing does not equal lack of support for the other?

Where has anyone on this thread said that they don't want the issue of women being mistreated sorted out? Or implied it? We are just not allowing ourselves to be diverted into a discussion of that on a thread about transwomen,

Doodledog

trisher

Rosie51

The irony here is that if not for transwomen muddying the waters, women would not be subject to restrictions, divisions, inequalities and mistreatment to prove their femaleness. It is the fact that being female is now a negotiable state that feminists are objecting to.

Spot on Doodledog!

Actually the isn't right. The restriction and intrusiive procedures in women's sport began because of complaints about the appearance of some women. They have gone on to identify as men some people who have been brought up as women all their lives, at least one has committed suicide because of this. Nothing to do with transwomen at all.

Ok then, let's unpick this one.

Women are being subjected to intrusive mistreatment to determine whether or not they are male, presumably because the powers that be recognise that if they were, in fact, male then they would have the advantage over female athletes?

How is that an argument for allowing male-born athletes to compete against female ones?

I don't think I have ever said that Doodledog what I have said is that if you are concerned about women in sport, or even the well being of women in general you would look at what has happened to women in sport and be appalled and that if you were (as has been claimed) a feminist you would want the whole issue looking at and sorting out. You would research and read about the subject and realise that historically the matter had nothing to do with transwomen. That in fact what is done has very little or even no scientific evidence behind it and has impacted massively on the lives of some women. Quite why it is done is debatable under other circumstances the activities would undoubtedly be termed assault. It has little to do with determining if someone is male and everything to do with limiting what is regarded as female. Which is why black women athletes say it is racist. They do not fit within those limits.

trisher

Rosie51

The irony here is that if not for transwomen muddying the waters, women would not be subject to restrictions, divisions, inequalities and mistreatment to prove their femaleness. It is the fact that being female is now a negotiable state that feminists are objecting to.

Spot on Doodledog!

Actually the isn't right. The restriction and intrusiive procedures in women's sport began because of complaints about the appearance of some women. They have gone on to identify as men some people who have been brought up as women all their lives, at least one has committed suicide because of this. Nothing to do with transwomen at all.

Ok then, let's unpick this one.

Women are being subjected to intrusive mistreatment to determine whether or not they are male, presumably because the powers that be recognise that if they were, in fact, male then they would have the advantage over female athletes?

How is that an argument for allowing male-born athletes to compete against female ones?

trisher, essays on the history of feminism aren't relevant to this discussion - they really are theory, unless you really believe that women think in terms of generational groupthink.

I don't care if sociologists are saying that 21st century theory suggests that women are no longer a cohesive sex, or that we are non-men, or that because the odd Edwardian supported Universal Suffrage we should meekly stand aside and watch whilst our rights are reversed. There will be another one along in no time to say the opposite, and their arguments will sell textbooks (so long as one doesn't cancel the other). A level essays need this sort of categorisation of theory, but 'real life' discussion doesn't.

The insinuation that anyone who doesn't accept what you say is threatened or insecure in their feminism and is not 'a good feminist' is nonsense, too. There is no accepted doctrine of feminism, and never has been.

I love the way presenting an alternative is labelled as "sticking up for men"or "supporting men". It may make you feel better but it really isn't a balanced or reasonable response. As I am quite secure in my history and support of feminism I don't feel threatened by it, but some might and it really isn't a good feminist response.

I thought the argument was that males who had gone through puberty and transition had an unfair advantage. American college sports scholarships are applied for at about 17, so anyone who has fully transitioned by that age is unlikely to have gone through puberty. So why is there still an advantage?

"Fully transitioned" what does that mean? You think that 17 year olds haven't started puberty? You don't see 17 year old boys bigger and stronger than 17 year old girls generally speaking? These transgirls have done nothing except self identify as the opposite sex. They haven't had puberty blockers, hormones or surgery.

I've seen evidence that in fact strength differences between boys and girls can be detected even before puberty starts.

GagaJo by definition a thesis starts with a theory? I won't bore you with my academic achievements, this is not the time for boasting.

Not irony Rosie. trisher is very measured in her responses, whatever you may think about the content of them.

I think I'm too old and tired to put up much of a fight these days. Although what I would say is that when I submitted a thesis on transgender theory a few years ago, my advisor said it was refreshing to read academic work on the topic not mired in abstraction. And that is what most of this thread is for most of the particiapants. Theory.

Mollygo

Why is there still an advantage? If you don’t know, then nothing I could spend time writing will convince you.
I suspect that even if I produced incontrovertible truth, you’d still support males, so I’ll just go to work and have a break.

There is substantial evidence that until puberty girls are as strong and as able as boys. The reason they don't exhibit their strengths is because they are taught by the gender roles they see around them that females are weaker and can do less. If you can contadict that with evidence do post it. If not my question remains if a 17 year old trans girl is appying for a sports scholarship, which requires evidence of academic and sporting acheivements, she can't have gone through puberty. I'm quite willing to be contradicted but I do need evidence and not just dismissive statements.

Why is there still an advantage? If you don’t know, then nothing I could spend time writing will convince you.
I suspect that even if I produced incontrovertible truth, you’d still support males, so I’ll just go to work and have a break.

Rosie51

^The irony here is that if not for transwomen muddying the waters, women would not be subject to restrictions, divisions, inequalities and mistreatment to prove their femaleness. It is the fact that being female is now a negotiable state that feminists are objecting to.^

Spot on Doodledog!

Actually the isn't right. The restriction and intrusiive procedures in women's sport began because of complaints about the appearance of some women. They have gone on to identify as men some people who have been brought up as women all their lives, at least one has committed suicide because of this. Nothing to do with transwomen at all.

College sports scholarships in the USA enable some students to get a university education they would never access otherwise. Transgirls are competing against natal girls, beating them with their natural male puberty advantage and taking those college places. That is unfair, or you could say cheating those girls out of their rightful place
I thought the argument was that males who had gone through puberty and transition had an unfair advantage. American college sports scholarships are applied for at about 17, so anyone who has fully transitioned by that age is unlikely to have gone through puberty. So why is there still an advantage?

The irony here is that if not for transwomen muddying the waters, women would not be subject to restrictions, divisions, inequalities and mistreatment to prove their femaleness. It is the fact that being female is now a negotiable state that feminists are objecting to.

Spot on Doodledog!

GagaJo

Sensible post trisher.

I suspect it was too sensible for those on a mission and who want an argument.

Oh the irony!

You posted while I was typing. trisher you really do assume far too much. Being concerned about one unfairness does not preclude anyone from having concerns about other unfairness. Transwomen in sport is an easily rectified unfairness. Let transwomen compete in their own sex class. That's one unfairness solved. Then we can move on to the other harder to solve problems.

Thanks Doodledog. A good post.

Sensible post trisher.

I suspect it was too sensible for those on a mission and who want an argument.

The irony here is that if not for transwomen muddying the waters, women would not be subject to restrictions, divisions, inequalities and mistreatment to prove their femaleness. It is the fact that being female is now a negotiable state that feminists are objecting to.

Nevertheless, to suggest that the answer to mistreatment of women is to allow transwomen to compete against women is illogical. Again, two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that women are being mistreated needs to be dealt with. So does the fact that transmen are able to compete against women.

.Sorry if my post was a bit too difficult to understand Miaow! "Diatribe"? My goodness some do relish their hyperbole. What's that saying "when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time"........

Men are tested for synthetic testosterone. Men's testosterone levels have a very much wider range naturally than women's levels.

Even the Paralympics with all their many categories within each disability still do not mix men and women. I wonder why? It's testosterone during male puberty that increases muscle mass, bone length and strength, heart and lung size. That is science fact. Other than muscle mass none can be decreased by reducing testosterone. The advantage remains.

Most men are happy to compete in their own sex class. The transwomen who want to compete against natal women, so far not one of them has been an outstanding success previously in their own sex class. Caitlyn Jenner who achieved huge sporting success pre transition thinks it's wrong for transwomen to compete against women. Someone with experience in both areas, but what does she know?

Of course I don't think all men are out to subdue and conquer women, what a ridiculous remark to make. There are men though that want to be winners whatever. They're willing to cheat to achieve success. Goodness some of them achieve it by cheating within their own sex category. Some have to step outside their sex category. College sports scholarships in the USA enable some students to get a university education they would never access otherwise. Transgirls are competing against natal girls, beating them with their natural male puberty advantage and taking those college places. That is unfair, or you could say cheating those girls out of their rightful place.

I think that's obvious but as I have been accused DARVOing again here is why I think it matters. Banning transwomen may make some of you feel better but it will not address the very real restrictions, divisions, inequalities and mis-treatment women involved in high-level sport have been subjected to. So if your concerns are really feminist, to see that women are treated fairly and not subjected to intrusive and demeaning treatment, and not merely concerned with sanctioning the few transwomen involved then surely you should be bothered.
If it's just another stick to beat transwomen with, of course, you won't. It just shows the limits of some people's feminism

I don’t know Rosie51. Did you post a diatribe and claim that men wanted to compete against women? I didn’t, except when they are trans. I think you did mention testosterone and I didn’t so maybe it’s addressed to you.

trisher is that reply meant for me or Mollygo?

What a funny comment. I post something which reveals the very real inanities which are present in the rulings on women's competetive sport today and you turn it into a diatribe about sport and women and against men. I wonder why you assume that men would be happy just to compete and win against women? Do you think they are all desperate to subdue and conquer?
The point about the testosterone ruling is that it is a measure now used only against women. It doesn't impact on men. And there is no scientific research to support it .Sorry if my post was a bit too difficult to understand..

Rosie51 Those who still think things should be run the way that benefits men will continue to ignore the facts you point out. They will claim they’re not doing that, divert the discussion by bringing in other emotive elements, and carry on believing in men’s rights, whether those men are transwomen or not.
Someone pointed out upthread, that if transwomen really wanted to be women, they would support women’s rights, not their own. Some transwomen probably do. Those who use their male advantages to support transwomens’ rights over those of natal women are not really women at all.