The Student Room Group

Caitlyn Jenner opposes trans girls in women's sports as unfair

Scroll to see replies

Original post by one_two_three
Raising the standard? If I was a professional athlete then I could not revert to being born a male and go through male puberty and take all of the physiological benefits to raise my standard. You can be quite sure that the women at the top of their game are already engaged in everything to keep them at the top and that nothing will push them up to the level required to compete in male sports.


If you have a cohort of all female atheletes that are X good at a certain sport

then we agree that trans people are unfairly good at that sport

If we add trans people into the pool of female atheletes, the standard of the pool on average has been raised.

(That's wait raising the standard means in the post of mine you quoted. not that trans people will do anything to raise the standard of the women already in the sport)
Original post by imlikeahermit
Outstanding response.


No amount of blustering from certain members on here about how it isn’t unfair will change the fact that transgender athletes competing in women’s sports have a genetic advantage along with higher levels of testosterone and stronger bone density. One would assume those who don’t see a problem with it most likely haven’t played a competitive sport in their lives, moreover never left their bedrooms.

yes yes yes.. lets not read the pages of arguments and just characterise them in a way that suits us.

As I'm currently the person arguing in favour of their inclusion on this thread, and I fully accept that they have an unfair biological advantage, and I have played a competitive sport and still do.. you might need to try again.
Original post by fallen_acorns
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and just presuming you typed the wrong word...but lets roll with what you've confirmed you actually meant:

In your analogy, we have a group of people who are more talented than the current surgeons but are kept out by an aspect of the entry requirements.

This analogy for you demonstrates why we shouldn't lower entry standards, because then we would let a more talented group become better surgeons than our current surgeons.

That's quite something.

You need to actually be able to debate before you can start to be patronising to others.


Where have I said this anywhere??? Let's look at my post again : post #52


Original post by Starship Trooper)
Probably not but I also probably couldn't cut it as a pilot or a surgeon either. Do you think they should lower the standards to make it more "fair" ?

If the answer is no, then re-evaluate the nonsense you just wrote.

(I can do dumb a false dichotomy too)


Note how when I used the surgeon example I did not say anywhere that I would be a be a better surgeon then existing surgeons. That is a pure figment of your imagination.

I was obviously highlighting that just because it might not strictly be fair that I can't be a surgeon that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong or should be changed

Presumably you are just high off your own farts so I forgive you.
So you are stating that they are likely to raise the standard of the sport and win the competitions - and then state that this is fair and that transwomen should be included? Do you know how hard women have had to fight to have a chance at professional sport, and even in that sport be seen as less than their male counterparts? Transwomen should not be allowed to compete in professional sport as a woman. Yes they are women, but if they are at all 'sporting' then they should appreciate their advantage and not enter that sport. Like I said, I would not care if there was a transwoman on my regular sunday league football team because I do not stand to lose or gain financially, but when finance is involved I think it is wrong.

It is very much comparable to if you have your heart set on a dream job, you complete your degree and gain all the experience you need. When you apply the bosses son also puts his application in which is ok but is not comparable to yours and all the effort you have spent for years. You get turned down for the job because the bosses son gets the job - if he had not applied the job would have been yours. You never stood a chance and there was never anything you could do to change that. That is a similar situation if you take competitive sport out of the equation. The inclusion of transwomen in elite sport is not equality in sport and not equitable. There is nothing that a woman can do that can compete with the advantage a transwoman has.
Reply 64
Original post by fallen_acorns
I have, in all my posts, considered their physical advantages, I just haven't seen any argument that justifies why they are nothing more than a drop in the ocean.

I mean, lets play this out. Lets say that physical attributes are a bell-curve, meaning the majority of women are at the average Center, and far fewer exist at the extremes of physicality. Were we to strive for the maximum fairness in sport, banning the extremity of the bell curve would enable the the majority of women to compete at elite level. So for basketball, if we were to ban the tiny percentage of women who are really tall, then the majority of women of roughly average height would now be able to compete fairly in the top level of competition.

Why don't we do this? It creates a fairer system, a much more level playing field, and opens up opportunities to a much larger pool of women to compete?

We don't because women who exist at the extremity of the bell curve are still women and it would be unfair to exclude them just because they were born with physical advantage over the average women. Instead we celebrate the advantage they were born with, we call it elite/professional sport and monetize how particularly excellent they are at something, and consign the majority of women to being unable to compete.

So why should the cisgender women who exist at the extremity of the bell curve be allowed to use their unfair physical advantage to win, when trans women should not?

The only answer is because they aren't women; 'women' in sport should be defined by sex and not gender. Any other justification ends up in a tangled illogical mess.

PRSOM
Original post by fallen_acorns
yes yes yes.. lets not read the pages of arguments and just characterise them in a way that suits us.

As I'm currently the person arguing in favour of their inclusion on this thread, and I fully accept that they have an unfair biological advantage, and I have played a competitive sport and still do.. you might need to try again.

It’s an unfair advantage. It’s as simple as that. Whether they finish mid table, whether they finish near the bottom, that is due to their advantage they have over every single person who is below them. I couldn’t give a **** if they aren’t sweeping the board. They are still beating others who may have trained for years because they have a genetic advantage.

So in your words. You might need to try again.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Starship Trooper
Where have I said this anywhere??? Let's look at my post again : post #52



Note how when I used the surgeon example I did not say anywhere that I would be a be a better surgeon then existing surgeons. That is a pure figment of your imagination.

I was obviously highlighting that just because it might not strictly be fair that I can't be a surgeon that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong or should be changed

Presumably you are just high off your own farts so I forgive you.


Does this need spelling out?

In your analogy, you are in the place of trans people. That is why it is relevant to the point - if you are not representing trans people, then your analogy bears no relation at all to what we were discussing.

Lets slowly work this through:

My example was that you are not capable of competing at the top level in any sport because sport isn't a meritocracy of talent alone but of talent combined with physical advantages. This relates to the issue nicely because we are discussing what makes sport fair and whether we should include another group who have physical advantages.

You then reply with:

"Probably not but I also probably couldn't cut it as a pilot or a surgeon either. Do you think they should lower the standards to make it more "fair" ?"

Now maybe you're just making an entirely unrelated point and just saying 'off topic but mate, do you think they should lower the standards to become a surgeon?"

But if we presume your on topic, then We have you making the point that they shouldn't lower the standards to include you as a surgeon = means = they shouldn't lower the standards to include trans women in womens sport.

I then take two posts to show how ridiculously poor an example this is, because in your example you are worse than surgeons, but in sport, trans women have an advantage (are better), hence if we use your example and correct it to trans people it makes no sense.


I hope that clears things up for you.
As we are all adults I think I should be allowed to enter an over 50s sprint. I am younger and so I will likely win with a lot less training because my body will be able to exert more explosive power and also recover quickly when I proceed in rounds. Genetically, I am at a point in my life where I will have a distinct advantage and this should be overlooked because I want to win a medal and I have no chance of winning that medal in my own age group. And it doesn't matter that this detracts from others efforts and enjoyment of the sport because I have achieved what I wanted and that is all that matters, not that it is unfair. When an impossible standard is set then others motivation waivers - you could be so set on achieving political correctness for one person that you lose sight of the damage that potentially could be caused to many other women and girls in sport.
Original post by imlikeahermit
It’s an unfair advantage. It’s as simple as that. Whether they finish mid table, whether they finish near the bottom, that is due to their advantage they have over every single person who is below them. I couldn’t give a **** if they aren’t sweeping the board. They are still beating others who may have trained for years because they have a genetic advantage.

So in your words. You might need to try again.

Of course its unfair.

20 posts of mine on this thread or so say as much. Do you want to parrot back to me anything else?

"They are still beating others who may have trained for years because they have a genetic advantage." So does the 6 foot 5 woman over my wife on a basketball court. We still let her play despite her 'genetic advantage'

I'll happily and have argued with anyone on here that says trans women don't have a biological advantage that makes it unfair for them to compete. But you then have to logically explain why certain groups who have unfair advantages can compete and others can't. See my post bellow for how that plays out - it all just routes back to your perspective of how 'woman' should be defined.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by one_two_three
As we are all adults I think I should be allowed to enter an over 50s sprint. I am younger and so I will likely win with a lot less training because my body will be able to exert more explosive power and also recover quickly when I proceed in rounds. Genetically, I am at a point in my life where I will have a distinct advantage and this should be overlooked because I want to win a medal and I have no chance of winning that medal in my own age group. And it doesn't matter that this detracts from others efforts and enjoyment of the sport because I have achieved what I wanted and that is all that matters, not that it is unfair. When an impossible standard is set then others motivation waivers - you could be so set on achieving political correctness for one person that you lose sight of the damage that potentially could be caused to many other women and girls in sport.

The fact that you view this as an appropriate analogy exposes the core difference here.

In your analogy you are factually not over 50, but want to take part anyway.

The only way that this relates to the trans issue is if you define transwomen as men and therefore also not part of the segregated group they should be competing in.

---

That's the core of it though. In general our society is moving away form segregation around sex to segregation around gender. This is happening because it's been observed that moving the definition from sex to gender has a huge benefit for a small minority group, and makes little to no impact on the majority group. Sport is just one aspect of this shift - those on the progressive side want it to be defined by gender, those that don't want it to be defined by sex. It sticks out more sorely than other parts of society where the change has already taken place because sport is physical, so there is a logical line of thinking that says it should continue to be defined by sex rather than gender.

Fairness is an the manifestation of the real route of the disagreement, is 'woman' defined by sex or gender.

That is where this debate routes back to and that is the question that encapsulates the entire debate around how trans people should function in society.
Original post by fallen_acorns
Does this need spelling out?

In your analogy, you are in the place of trans people. That is why it is relevant to the point - if you are not representing trans people, then your analogy bears no relation at all to what we were discussing.

Lets slowly work this through:

My example was that you are not capable of competing at the top level in any sport because sport isn't a meritocracy of talent alone but of talent combined with physical advantages. This relates to the issue nicely because we are discussing what makes sport fair and whether we should include another group who have physical advantages.

You then reply with:

"Probably not but I also probably couldn't cut it as a pilot or a surgeon either. Do you think they should lower the standards to make it more "fair" ?"

Now maybe you're just making an entirely unrelated point and just saying 'off topic but mate, do you think they should lower the standards to become a surgeon?"

But if we presume your on topic, then We have you making the point that they shouldn't lower the standards to include you as a surgeon = means = they shouldn't lower the standards to include trans women in womens sport.

I then take two posts to show how ridiculously poor an example this is, because in your example you are worse than surgeons, but in sport, trans women have an advantage (are better), hence if we use your example and correct it to trans people it makes no sense.


I hope that clears things up for you.

The point was in relation to your argument about sports being unfair in the first place as therefore being sufficient grounds upon which to base further unfairness.

My point re the unliklihood of me becoming a surgeon demonstrates that something being unfair doesn't necessarily entail that it is unjust or should be changed.

This seems to me to be relatively straightforward.
Original post by Starship Trooper
The point was in relation to your argument about sports being unfair in the first place as therefore being sufficient grounds upon which to base further unfairness.

My point re the unliklihood of me becoming a surgeon demonstrates that something being unfair doesn't necessarily entail that it is unjust or should be changed.

This seems to me to be relatively straightforward.

It doesn't demonstrate that at all. If you are barred from being a surgeon because you are not capable, it's a demonstration of an entirely fair system.

(and if we play that analogy out in sports, one that supports trans inclusion)
I haven't been this distracted by a thread in a long time. Nothings getting done that I need to do, so time to un-watch and bow out. I think any post I make from now would just be a repeat of an earlier one anyway.
Original post by fallen_acorns
It doesn't demonstrate that at all. If you are barred from being a surgeon because you are not capable, it's a demonstration of an entirely fair system.

(and if we play that analogy out in sports, one that supports trans inclusion)

I would say that it's fair that I'm barred because in other words I do not meet the requirements.

The requirements of women's competition entail (or should entail) that the requirements entail being born female.
Reply 74
Original post by fallen_acorns
It’s only sexist if you still view them as men.

I view it to be the most optimal arrangement to societally view trans people as their transitioned selves. So we are arguing about whether to exclude one group of women who have a physical advantage from women’s sports to aid fairness vs inclusion. There’s nothing sexist about either position if it’s a debate that only includes women.

Kind of hard not to view a man as a man, this is, after all, about biology and as much as certan scientifically illiterate quarters screech otherwise that isnt going to change..
It doesnt though, thats the point. A biological male ois not and never will be a biological female. Identify has absolutely nothing to do with this immutable scientific fact..
Reply 75
Original post by ThatOldGuy
I think your argument is one of the following. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1. Men and women at the elite end show differences of ability. Therefor, it's reasonable to separate them. Trans women show no such differences. Therefor, it's okay to have them compete.
Or:
2) Trans women are women, and elite sport is all about showing differences of ability. Since there are differences of ability between women within sport, any differences should be celebrated. If records get smashed, well... Records get smashed by CIS people as well.
Is it one of those?

No.

Also, at what point is someone "Now a woman" if it's not a declarative? What needs to be done before they're recognized as "now a woman"?

As far as sport goes, their blood testosterone level must be within the approved range for women, or they must have had gender reassignment surgery.

As I said, the belief that men can compete in women's sport simply by declaring "I am a women" is the stuff of the uninformed or agenda-driven controversy-seeker.
Reply 76
Original post by fallen_acorns
If you have a cohort of all female atheletes that are X good at a certain sport
then we agree that trans people are unfairly good at that sport

No we don't, because that is not what the evidence suggests. Most, if not all elite world records and champions are born female, not trans female.
Most, if not all trans female athletes are beaten by born female athletes at some point. Every example given of "champion" trans athletes show performance levels some way below the best born females.
There is simply no argument here, unless you are claiming that all top women athletes "are unfairly good at that sport".
Reply 77
Original post by Napp
Kind of hard not to view a man as a man, this is, after all, about biology and as much as certan scientifically illiterate quarters screech otherwise that isnt going to change..
It doesnt though, thats the point. A biological male ois not and never will be a biological female. Identify has absolutely nothing to do with this immutable scientific fact..

So you refuse to acknowledge the existence of trans-women, or their right to be recognised as women?
Why am I not surprised?
Original post by QE2
So you refuse to acknowledge the existence of trans-women, or their right to be recognised as women?
Why am I not surprised?

Facts don't care about your feelings liberal

:tongue:
Original post by fallen_acorns
Stating something, isn't the same as justifying it.

But you raise a good point though:

Women in their 20s have unfair average physical advantages over women in their 50s. Should they be banned for possessing an unfair average advantage? Perhaps we do need segregation by age as well as by gender and race.

No. The differentiation happens between sexes only not ages or heights & weights.

Quick Reply

Latest