Reply With QuoteExcellent sensible point 👉 fully agree 👍Originally Posted by Willo1962
Hall Of Fame
I think the one thing you can say for certain about all ethical issues is that they are not simple!
Issues like this never really split into dualities: this is right, that is wrong; this is x, that is not x; etc. If you think about them deeply enough, applying reason & science & equal fairness to all parties, (and trying to avoid emotion & pre-digested thinking) most of these things are naturally complicated and difficult to resolve.
But of course for practical purposes we have to draw lines somewhere. (Examples: At what age does a child become an adult? At what point could a bunch of cells be considered an embryo or foetus?) We hope for the wisest decision. It will never be perfect. Some parties will always feel aggrieved. I'm glad I don't have to decide, merely ponder.
Hall Of Fame
Excellent sensible point 👉 fully agree 👍
Hall Of Fame
The cheek swab detects a second X chromosome. That's it. It can't tell a female XY, it can't tell a male XXY. All it can do is signal a possible need for blood testing.
Sorry, I don't buy it. The gender critical voices have been shouting for a decade.
It's nice you think trans people should get just a reasonable degree of respect - not as much as the rest of us right?
Trans people can change ***. My view is that the default should be to be treated as the *** they are recognised as legally and socially unless there's a very compelling reason not to - safety is certainly one such reason. Even then it should be blanket.
(Neither of us has any idea whether the Sutton goalkeeper is also inter*** by the way.)
Most of the rest feels like a rehash of the gay panic of my youth.
Hall Of Fame
I think there are two separate arguments here. You have the rare cases of genetic/chromosomal disorders that cause issues where effectively people are somewhere in between male and female biology (both anatomically and hormonal). These people have no say a lot of the time as doctors assign them female because the surgery to make them look "normal" is easier and this is done either at birth or very early in their life. (I don't particularly like using the word normal hence the quotes but can't think of a better term right now)
These cases need to be handled delicately, but they will still hold the advantages of developing with more testosterone during puberty for example, reducing testosterone after the fact still gives them a baseline advantage over those born female and whom developed under "normal" parameters. In these cases, I wonder whether it would be better to use a Paralympic style system of classes if there are enough athletes with this scenario.
The second scenario are people who choose to transition by choice. In this scenario, I don't think it's right they compete against women at all. Regardless of status, no amount of hormone blockers will stop the advantage of the amounts of testosterone that built their bodies during puberty, they will have stronger bone density, more muscle mass and the baseline will be much higher than a female athlete even with reduced testosterone.
Then you have the ethical issues, It's not really controversial if they've had top and bottom surgery but where they just identify as women is the issue. Many female athletes have complained about trans athletes just showing off their male genitals in the changing rooms making them uncomfortable and I can fully accept that women don't wish to be confronted with male genitals when they themselves are in a vulnerable position of getting ready themselves but this is seen as controversial somehow? That to me is the crux of the argument, should you only be considered "trans" if you've completed all the surgery? This would make single *** changing rooms so much easier, if you have a pole, you go in one place, a hole the other, job done! But apparently that seems to also be controversial
Hall Of Fame
If you are right about the need for a blood test I apologise for oversimplifying. Do you think taking a blood sample is too intrusive to permit in the pursuit of safety and fairness?
"Trans people can change ***." I think that's nonsense; a man who has full cross *** hormone treatment and breast implants and orchiectomy and penile inversion doesn't become a woman. He is still at risk of prostate cancer; he is still unable to conceive, gestate, and give birth to a child; he still doesn't menstruate and will not go through the menopause; he still has a male skeletal structure and the other advantages of male puberty. He still has his social upbringing as a boy and a man in a gendered society. He can never know what it is to have a female body.
When I was a téenager, I was followed and propositioned by men, which was frightening, but I stood a better chance than a typical girl of the same age (and I was not particularly strong, but stronger than most of my female friends) and I had no fear of pregnancy. Men often have no idea of what women routinely have to put up with from men. When it comes to sport, we used to recognise that women needed their own category. That should not have changed for the comfort of men with trans identities, because the reasons for women's sport have not changed. I also think that this applies to other female-only spaces, but that's another matter.
Hall Of Fame
Wow !
Hall Of Fame
But that's not true is it. If you take the time to look you will find that there are several naturally occurring permutations of your simplistic (blinkered) post.
Hall Of Fame
1 kind of fool
Hall Of Fame
And a minority of people that that are under the illusion that they can somehow interfere with mother nature.
Hall Of Fame
If we did not interfere with mother nature we would all be living in caves (at best), our life expectancy would be about 30 years (max) and our top speed would be about 25 m.p.h. (as opposed to about 17,000 m.p.h. {for space-craft}).
Posting Permissions