Lance Armstrong becomes reality TV villain after clashing with Modern Family star over trans athletes; Tadej Pogačar: “The Tour de France is definitely not over”; Tour heads to its ‘roof’ for Alpine monster + more on the live blog

Car Delenda Est wrote:

Instead of reaching straight for the ad hominem you could just say "I have no counter argument", the end result is all the same anyway though.

I just thought that we as a society had moved on from segregation based on the colour of someone's skin. You could have chosen a different trait such as height or weight (which also have the benefit of being easy to measure and assign numbers to) to make your argument, but instead you went for the most insensitive characteristic possible. That's why it's a stupid comment.

(By the way, ad hominem would be if I attacked you, but I instead attacked your comment which is not ad hominem at all)

I'm glad you raised that point.
I went for that example for a very good reason: there are many applicable parallels and ignoring them would be an injustice and erasure.

Of course there is no running ability conferred by skin colour, just as there is no ability conferred by indentified gender, the difference comes from other characteristics such as height that statistically, but not universally, correlate with skin colour: just as there are advantages that statistically, but not universally, correlate with sex chromosomes.

Furthermore trans people have been out-grouped, demonised (see: trans people in public toilets debate) and dehumanised in a way that we used to do to people with different skin colour, by drawing that parallel I hope to draw people's attention to this cognitive dissonance.

Lastly why do we choose to segregate based on characteristics that have an indirect correlation with sports ability? Surely if we must segregate for fairness it should be based on characteristics that have a more direct impact such as height, metabolic rate, BMI etc?

The truth is the current segregation has nothing to do with fairness in sports and everything to do with reinforcing ideological identity politics.

hawkinspeter wrote:

"I instead attacked your comment which is not ad hominem at all"

What part of my comment did you attack?
If you don't actually engage with the comment and merely declare it stupid (i.e. a view held by the stupid) that is an ad hominem.

I'm not going to discuss segregation based on skin colour for obvious reasons.

Please reframe your comment to something less offensive.

I was attacking the entire comment as being stupid due to its racist nature - I'm sure that's fairly obvious to most people, but now you know too.

If you thought it was racist you should definitely try reading it again..

I used the racism analogue to discuss parallels between it and the trans debate, you've used it as a cheap trick to 'win' an argument without making any actual points: time for you to take a look in the mirror maybe?

Not ad hominem.
The post was about your comment.

If it were about my comment it would have been focused on the points made in my comment.
What they wrote translates to "that's a view held by stupid people and I won't explain why": ad hominem.

I think you might be projecting a little.

elaborate?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Car Delenda Est wrote:

It seems that the anti-trans position is that there are physiological differences between people that confer an 'unfair' disadvantage, and forcing people to compete against someone with an advantage is 'insulting', so we should be segregating people based on physiology. So should we take this idea further and segregate based on any advantageous physiological differences? Statistically dark skinned people do better at running and light skinned people do better at swimming, would racial segregation in sports be fairer? Is forcing light skinned runners to compete against dark skinned runners insulting?

Is that a contender for most stupid comment of the day?

A straight up winner, I'd say.

the little onion wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Car Delenda Est wrote:

It seems that the anti-trans position is that there are physiological differences between people that confer an 'unfair' disadvantage, and forcing people to compete against someone with an advantage is 'insulting', so we should be segregating people based on physiology. So should we take this idea further and segregate based on any advantageous physiological differences? Statistically dark skinned people do better at running and light skinned people do better at swimming, would racial segregation in sports be fairer? Is forcing light skinned runners to compete against dark skinned runners insulting?

Is that a contender for most stupid comment of the day?

 

A straight up winner, I'd say.

Me too - the "case" for differentiating humans into various classes which are then awarded or denied rights, access and so forth is fundamentally based on the notion that these various classes of humans are somehow natural rather than cultural contructs.And that their attributes make them more or less worthy.

Of course, it's easy to derive endless classes of human based on all sorts of features, from gender to height to skin colour to nose-shape to head-bump configuration to so-called IQ to [insert your own vast list of human differentiators]. Some differentiations can be useful for some limited purposes but, being human, we do love to attribute a vast list of madee-up attributes to these classes in addition to the one or three that are representative of the small differences that actually matter for this or that purpose.

But in considering a sporting competition (or any other kind of competition) there's only one significant attribute that matters: who is the best at the sporting event in question? All the bollox about differentiating people into various classes means little or nothing since all that matters in the end is: who wins because they're the best at it? 

Moreover, if the classifiers want to differentiate "the best ten year old girl with blonde hair, green eyes, less than 4ft 10ins high and with a certain shape of head" there's nothing to stop them finding the highest placed such person in the race and giving them a prize.

In short, any and all sporting events should be "open".

There can still be a hierarchy of would-be competitors to enable sporting events to be size-limited, based on point-accumulation (as in old-fashioned cycle road racing) where some events are only open to those with a certain number of points accumulated from good placings as they create their personal history of competing. If you have N points, you can enter this event - no matter what gender, skin colour, age or head bump configuration you have.

Why aren't all sporting events like this? The answer to that rhetorical question is: because various mini-adolfs love to arrange hierarchies of worth for other humans based on their mad little prejudices, intolerances, dislikes and need to punish or abuse someone/everyone because of their own fundamental lack of self-esteem, ability or worth.

Agree 100%, well put.

Cugel wrote:

Why aren't all sporting events like this?

As much as I agree with your general point, I don't think boxing would lend itself well to being "open".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBEiDXM79U

Cugel wrote:

Why aren't all sporting events like this?

because not all sports are based on the individual. For example, cycling - the "winner" only crosses the line first with the help of all the others in the team.

So whereas the open model described does work, for example the Sierre-Zinal race, it can't work in events like team cycling.

Sports where participants compete head to head, like tennis, would be problematic.

In any case, as a solution it is much like replacing men's and women's toilets with unisex facilities. Instead of advancing the cause of trans-women to be equivalent to real women, you are simply doing the converse - reducing the scope of real women until it is restricted to the scope of trans-women. That's fair, in the same way lose-lose is fair.

Sriracha wrote:

Cugel wrote:

Why aren't all sporting events like this?

because not all sports are based on the individual. For example, cycling - the "winner" only crosses the line first with the help of all the others in the team. So whereas the open model described does work, for example the Sierre-Zinal race, it can't work in events like team cycling. Sports where participants compete head to head, like tennis, would be problematic. In any case, as a solution it is much like replacing men's and women's toilets with unisex facilities. Instead of advancing the cause of trans-women to be equivalent to real women, you are simply doing the converse - reducing the scope of real women until it is restricted to the scope of trans-women. That's fair, in the same way lose-lose is fair.

In recognition of the fact that it can be quite difficult for we humans to imagine scenarios outside of our cultural norms, with all their long-established prejudices and predelictions, it can be useful to do two things: mental experiments imagining different and radical social arrangements; an examination of the history of our own and other cultures to see how radically beliefs & practices can & do actually change.

For example, imagine any gender, age, skin colour or physical condition was no artifical culturally-made bar to entering various competitions, including the team sports you mention. Selection for the team is purely dependent on previous perfomances, not gender, age, colour, nationality or "disablement". If you're good enough for the team's required performance, you can be selcted.

In such a scenario, would it always be the case that young, old, male, female, tall, short, pink, brown or any other condition would always see an exclusion based purely on ability? Put another way, could a Tour de France team include a capable woman or two, for example?

The current culturally-dominant answer will be: of course not!  Women are weaker!! Etc.. Another answer might be that, given the time, training and opportunity, some women might well bring additional strengths to a Tour de France team. Maybe it would be tactical gnouse; stamina; a superb power-to-weight index .... or even "strength" of the cycling kinds?

**********

Not that long ago, women, "coloured people" and sufferers of various genetic conditions were regarded as inherently unable to have more than a low intelligence; the physical strength to perform certain tasks; or the emotional control to overcome certain sorts of difficulty. All bollox, and well-proven as such for some decades now.  Do you think other assumptions that excude various kinds of people from various kinds of activities/roles "because they couldn't do it" might prove to be false assumptions?

Some folk have a queer mental block that makes them assume that "now" is the moment when "we know everything, unlike them olden folk. History has ended and there can be no better arrangements than those we have today". It ain't necessarily so.

Cugel wrote:

Me too - the "case" for differentiating humans into various classes which are then awarded or denied rights, access and so forth is fundamentally based on the notion that these various classes of humans are somehow natural rather than cultural contructs.  And that their attributes make them more or less worthy.

Well... for "natural kinds" that's yes and no!  Yes in that our culture in the UK disapproves of several cases of this kind of "sorting" (-ism) for reasons the majority feel are sound (we do more or less... it really depends on where you're sitting).

No in that "nature vs. culture" is going nowhere.  Where are the "unnatural" humans - we would seem to be a part of "nature" and if not, why and how not?  Alternatively (as Nietzche pointed out IIRC) if you're trying to invoke nature as a source of morality you'll find yourself on a really slippery slope - possibly to a Sarlacc ant-lion pit!

Cugel wrote:

But in considering a sporting competition (or any other kind of competition) there's only one significant attribute that matters: who is the best at the sporting event in question? All the bollox about differentiating people into various classes means little or nothing since all that matters in the end is: who wins because they're the best at it?

That sounds a bit like the Platonic ideal of sport.  And could it be for more than one purpose?

Sport certainly has historical and cultural baggage (throwing javelins?).  Not to say political and commercial (see UCI bottom bracket height rule).  Yes there are arbitrary rules - unfair to some, sometimes.  However others are attempts to allow wider competition by balancing the variation which nature serves up to give a more even chance of people winning and/or to limit injury.  That involves sub-groups and handicaps.

If you want a more "open" contest you can always declare your own, make rules (or none) and invite participants.  If you feel that best serves the purpose you have in mind (to find "the best at it"?  Though I'm betting almost any squirrel will beat me in a tree-climbing contest.  Now what?).  In fact at other than elite level even existing organised sports can be more "laissez faire".

chrisonatrike wrote:

If you want a more "open" contest you can always declare your own, make rules (or none) and invite participants.  If you feel that best serves the purpose you have in mind (to find "the best at it"?  Though I'm betting almost any squirrel will beat me in a tree-climbing contest.  Now what?).  In fact at other than elite level even existing organised sports can be more "laissez faire".

You could probably beat this one, too, but the contest could be made more fair if you had eight pints first.

andystow wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

If you want a more "open" contest you can always declare your own, make rules (or none) and invite participants.  If you feel that best serves the purpose you have in mind (to find "the best at it"?  Though I'm betting almost any squirrel will beat me in a tree-climbing contest.  Now what?).  In fact at other than elite level even existing organised sports can be more "laissez faire".

You could probably beat this one, too, but the contest could be made more fair if you had eight pints first.

Possibly this one, too

And there was me thinking they were looking in the long grass for lost nuts!

No, we should be separating racing categories based on sex and not gender identity.

How someone wants to live their life is their business and as long as they are in a happy place then all is good but their XY blueprint hasn't changed no matter how loudly the blue hair brigade shout.

S13SFC wrote:

No, we should be separating racing categories based on sex

Why?

...just so I'm getting this right. 

You're arguing Transwomen should be able to compete in the women's category, but at the same time questioning the need for a women's category? 

I think the premise of having women's categories is that because of physical differences between males and females, females can not realistically expect to compete with males on an equal footing. 

Are you arguing that this is an unreasonable premise? 

Just how much do you hate women? 

Quote:

You're arguing Transwomen should be able to compete in the women's category, but at the same time questioning the need for a women's category?

Yes, if the category is 'women' let it be all women. If you want to change the category to something directly relevant to sporting ability then feel free to argue so.

Quote:

I think the premise of having women's categories is that because of physical differences between males and females, females can not realistically expect to compete with males on an equal footing.

Are you arguing that this is an unreasonable premise?

Yes I am, these physical differences are not universal to all women regardless of chromosome.

Quote:

Just how much do you hate women?

Thank you for illustrating my point. What does hating women have to do with this?
If you were transported 100 years back in time and heard someone say "You think black and white people should compete in the same sports? That's ignorant of racial theory, how much do you hate white people?" I'd hope you'd have the sense to realise they were just a racist.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

...just so I'm getting this right. 

You're arguing Transwomen should be able to compete in the women's category, but at the same time questioning the need for a women's category? 

I think the premise of having women's categories is that because of physical differences between males and females, females can not realistically expect to compete with males on an equal footing. 

Are you arguing that this is an unreasonable premise? 

Just how much do you hate women? 

"Hate women"? Is this some half-ersed attempt to claim a feminism because women are currently confined to various sporting ghettoes; and some have even been encouraged to defend the ghetto?

Now, don't get me wrong, ole Ray of sunshine, I'm all for allowing groups of women, men, pink people or folk with certain head bumps to organise their own private events, so as to "be with my own kind". Private clubs are something of a tradition in Blighty albeit some of them tend to degenerate into, well, degeneracy!

But when it comes to public events, roles and the like that have no alternative, equality of opportunity seems like a good underpinning. 

Can we also consider your "realistically" derived opinion that women's physical differences make them unable to compete with men and expect success? This is not an opinion derived from "realism" about physical sporting abilities but one derived from a current culturally-arranged and enforced exlusionary principle, that there must be mens' races seprated from womens. An arrangement that is a self-fulfilling prophecy because it never actually tests your assertion about inherent physical differences producing an inability for women to beat men.

However, I know many sporty women who are just as good as many men. I know; some who are a lot better. Perhaps some women will be better than ALL the men!? We'll never know unless we test it by allowing them to compete together, inclusive of enough years so that the training and other factors then available equally can have their effects.

Car Delenda Est wrote:

S13SFC wrote:

No, we should be separating racing categories based on sex

Why?

So to follow this line of reasoning, we should progressively eliminate all the boundaries and distinctions between men and women, until there is no demarcation. At that point there will be no observable difference between men and women, there will be total homogeneity.

What then will it mean to transition? And how will anyone, including oneself, know you transitioned?

So your only argument for gender segregation in sports is to affirm gender norms?
What exactly does that have to do with fairness in sports?

Because as a society we have decided that if we have sporting contests, we would like women to have a chance of winning some events and they almost never would if they had to compete against men. (They never would in events where the best men competed against the best women). 

That decision isn't set in stone, it's been made by humans and can be undone by them. But it's reasonable to suspect that even fewer girls and women would participate in sport if they know from the outset that they can never win because many competitors are bigger/stronger/faster  simply because of significant physiological advantages which were set before birth, enhanced at puberty and cannot be overcome by effort or training. 

If you're comfortable with that happening, be honest and say so. It's a consistent position to hold, you just need to accept that you're telling women that they just have to suck it up and stick to being also-rans. 

I would argue the same if there were clearly-definable races, with minuscule amounts of overlap, where one race outperformed another for physiological reasons by similar margins to which men outperform women. But there aren't, so I don't. 

But why is this treatment given to the category of women? By your logic it should be a category in the Paralympics. But why is this not also done for other statistically disadvantaged categories?
We have no separate categories for the short or slight..

The question of where you stop also arises.  Should tall runners have hteir legs tied together to limit their stride length to that of the shortest?

Exactly, there are many places you could draw the line, but transphobia has decided we draw that line down the middle of women.

Car Delenda Est wrote:

Exactly, there are many places you could draw the line, but transphobia has decided we draw that line down the middle of women.

(Goes back and re-reads stuff on gender identity, gender self-determination, gender critical etc. and how those might interact with biological sex / sporting performance and comes out more muddled than before.  Particularly since some of the new definitions appear to call their own basis into question...)