News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Because athletic associations decided long ago to segregate athletics by sex to account for this average difference, even though some women are taller and stronger than men.
So it's just a ban on trans women from sports, just because with no actual logic or ethical rationale behind it. Even though it is literally not fair, and the justification provided for it is "fairness". Gotcha.
Literally the only reason we have a separate category of women's sports is because, on average, women are physically weaker than men. If both sexes could compete against each other, women would barely exist in elite sports. If that wasn't the case, there'd be no justification for excluding cis men from women's sports. After all, being male is "just another advantage" like being tall, right?
On average, cis women are physically weaker than trans women also, and so the same logic applies.
The only equitable solution I can see is a third category of trans sports, where trans people compete against each other
So any woman stronger than the average for women ought to also be excluded then? Again, why is it specific that trans women be excluded?
There are not and likely will not be anywhere near enough trans people to occupy a single category at a single event. Refusing to allow trans women to compete as women, like every other woman, is a de facto ban on transgender women participating in sporting events. Transgender women are women, just like tall women are women and women with large lung capacity are women. Why should trans women be excluded for being above average but other women who are above average shouldn't be?
No, not any woman stronger than the average for women, because by definition the leading woman will always be stronger than other women.
At the same time, plenty of cis men are weaker than the average female athlete, but we don't let them compete.
We exclude all males as a category, including former males, because on average they have an unfair advantage. Attempting to make exceptions based on individual performance isn't feasible.
Effectively, women's sports are like amateur vs pro competition. You don't let an ex pro play in an amateur match, even if they're not as strong as they once were.
So de facto banning some women from any kind of professional sporting competition is acceptable because it's too much work to include them? Why is that acceptable to you? And why is it necessary to couch these concepts in discussions about fairness when you yourself admit they are not fair? Excluding female people from female categories seems counterproductive to any attempts at providing level playing fields for women and girls in professional athletics.
Also there are other groups of women that are on average more physically capable then the average for women as a whole. Should they also be excluded?
I'm not sure where the disconnect is happening. It's been explained to you over and over but you loop back.
The two categories exist to provide women a fair chance to compete in a category of their own. We don't establish categories based on outliers, but on averages. On average male athletes will always outperform female athletes. There is no way around this fact. It's not a matter of too much work to include females. There is no work to be had if we wanted to ensure fair odds. Most of the trans community agrees with this assessment. It's not that hot of a take.
No they don't...
I tried googling for some statistics regarding trans people's opinions on this matter and I didn't find anything, is there a poll either of you has seen that indicates this or is this the general consensus among trans people you know?
No poll. But I'm a trans athlete that has been active in trans communities for nearly a decade.
I have no numbers, but I think it's safe to say I'd be aware if most of my own community was against my participation.
Level playing fields for women and girls aren't served by allowing competition from people who haven't always been female. Its not fair on cis women to have to compete against people who've had advantages from going through puberty while male.
The purpose of women's sport isn't to be inclusive of women, its to be exclusive of men. And its not that it's too much work to include some trans women on the basis of ability, it's that it's just impossible. Do they include only those who aren't likely to win? Maybe some that can win, but not by too much? What about a champion male who's recently transitioned and would shatter the world record, making it unattainable for any cis woman for years to come, maybe ever? There's no way of making those judgements, no matter how much work is done.
Its the same principle as banning performance enhancing drugs. Some clean athletes might beat some drug using athletes, but we don't try to figure that out, we just ban drugs. And puberty as a male is getting a few years if hormone-induced muscle gain that isn't fully lost even post-transition, even on hormone blocking drugs.
Trans women are not male.
The bar for entry is and has always been several years of sustained hormone therapy with normal estrogen and testosterone levels. And even that is far too restrictive.
What about groups of cisgender women who are above the physical average for women as a whole? Why is the proposal to ban transgender women and not other groups/classes of women based on them being on par above average? I mean is it fair for women from South Korea to compete against women from the Netherlands? Should women from the Netherlands be banned from competition? They have an average advantage, so it's unfair to the rest of the women that they're allowed at all.
Your essential argument has to be that transgender women are not women. There is no other argument for excluding trans women that adequately explains why it's necessary for trans women to be excluded and not anyone else.