What would Aristotle say? :roll:

Right now? Well, ok then, pass the Zoom link. :fire: — Baden

"Dispense with", I said, not "transgress".

Everyone would be able to participate in a league of their peers, and nobody would be paid astronomical sums to play games in deadly, life-threatening earnest. — Vera Mont

Play games just for fun? It'll never catch on.

You are left without a team, which is where women will be left if forced to compete with men. — Hanover

God forbid that any woman should suffer my miserable fate!

There is. You are left without a team, which is where women will be left if forced to compete with men. — Hanover

Hey, some of us are okay playing with the men who chose the alternate gate. We'll make a fine, convivial team and have more fun than the rah-rah-rah elite ones.

Therefore, as Banno suggested, maybe more partitions or something. — Baden

So you represent 100,000 in your district, and you're going to vote to build partitions for the 0.05% (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-study-estimates-16-million-us-identify-transgender-2022-06-10/) who are asking for them, which is 50 people. Good call.

In sports, hormone testing is the way to go, I guess. — Baden

I guess. Or maybe not. "For instance, most studies have shown that men have a greater proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, a difference traditionally attributed to genetics." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/4-myths-about-testosterone/

If you rebuke me for trying to claim XY is the essence of maleness, I rebuke you for trying to claim testosterone is the essence of maleness. At least XY is more fundamental.

. As for medical treatment of kids, there has to be major safeguards in place. There's a high suicide risk for trans kids so it's about trying to mitigate potential mental health problems in the least invasive way possible. — Baden

The UK, Finland, Sweden, and Norway have illegalized the use of puberty blockers on children. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/?sh=7d68e9e27efb I point this out because in the article @Banno cited, the author lamented Arkansas' same limitation, which goes to show the rampant bias in favor of supporting the trans community without regard to consequence.

I think the opposite of you, which is that we're all slowly going to jump on this bandwagon. What I think actually is going on is that people jumped on too fast and they're starting to jump off. The true beleivers think this is just backlash. I don't. I think people are starting to slow down and think this one through. That's my position at least.

But, where I push back is in deleting prior designations when they continue to have application in particular contexts. — Hanover

Surely with the bathroom you agree that it has always been a gender-based policing?

And that's where we started.

With sports I feel like the only reason womens sports exist is because it was a compromise -- women's sports didn't get funding until title 9, as I understand it historically. But we could just fund "sports" -- and people could compete regardless of their sex, may the best person win.

Locker rooms -- @Banno covered that with more dividers. That's not a big demand. That's something like the ADA accommodations.

What other context?

The reason I wasn't interested in a detailed debate on all those topics was because I only have some rough ideas on them, which I'm working through. On bathrooms, y 'all just need to get in line.

What other context? — Moliere

Apparently, the real big issue is concern for the safety of 'genuine' females if false claimants are allowed into their sacrosanct space.
I rather think we're in more danger from puffed-up politicians, preachers, entrepreneurs, movie moguls, sport and screen stars, future SCOTUS frat boys, commanding officers and shift foremen, not to mention incels and their older counterparts in state legislatures, than a few - so few they're not worth the expense of better partitions - men in skirts needing relief.

Something that's been mentioned is this 0.5% marker -- this is traditionally the reason for special accommodations. It's recognized that in a democracy minorities will not be represented by the majority, but in a liberal democracy with individual rights you can only maintain that ideal by carving out exceptions for minorities.

Worldwide thats 40 million people. Not a small number. US-nationally that's about 1.6 million people.

That's a lot of people.

Apparently, the real big issue is concern for the safety of 'genuine' females if false claimants are allowed into their sacrosanct space. — Vera Mont

That's the imagined issue. As @Baden has pointed out, that fear isn't based in facts.

There's a high suicide risk for trans kids so it's about trying to mitigate potential mental health problems in the least invasive way possible. I'm no expert on that. Maybe e. g. frank knows more (at least I think he's in the health industry). — Baden

"Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth... Interpersonal microaggressions, made a unique, statistically significant contribution to lifetime suicide attempts and emotional neglect by family approached significance. School belonging, emotional neglect by family, and internalized self-stigma made a unique, statistically significant contribution to past 6-month suicidality." NIH, pubmed

Those are frightening statistics.

Yes. Even if we don't understand why they want to transition, we understand that we need to help them.

The topic goes into discussion about toilets and the trans issues. As a couple of people have pointed out already, gender neutral toilets are a possibility. Such facilities already exist in places like coffee shops, and make no binary distinctions based on genitals, appearance or chromosomes.

The question of what is a woman goes back to comments by JK Rowling and culture wars. After many successful attempts to bring acceptance of trans issues and people who don't fit into the binary, there is a current backlash. It seems to often revolve around the right of cisgender to suggest that people, mainly women, are likely to be offended, especially by people who began as male, biologically, in women's spaces.

This idea is not new because it was raised historically by lesbian feminists but it is now perpetuated by the media. It rests on an assumption that men can rape women and that a pre-op male to female could rape a female potentially. It is sometimes backed up by concerns about transwomen who have committed sexual offences, which portrays a negative stereotype of a transwoman rather like the film, 'Silence of the Lambs.'

With the current focus on 'what is a woman' in the media there is a question how far it will go in ushering in a backlash. I read recently than in South Korea there is an introduction of legislation to allow police to inspect the genitalia of transgender people in toilets by a member of the police of the person's assigned gender. There is also a lot of hostility to LGBTIQ throughout the world, so any genuine philosophy discussion needs.

The attempt to ask what is a woman, which is sexist without the equivalent one of what is a man, can become shallow if it is simply about trying to reinforce the binary. It is this strict binary division which may drive people to 'fit in' as opposed to a more critical and fluid understanding of gender stereotypes about behaviour and bodies.

Well, perhaps the article has sown a seed, it may become apparent that chromosomes do not determine phenotype or social role, and that as a result it is just silly to suggest that the built environment be determined by chromosomal differences; it may become apparent that your chromosomes do not determine your capacity to use a urinal.

The place of philosophical analysis here is in setting out what it is that is at issue.

Two side points.

How would this thread be different if it were entitled "What is a real man?"

And why is sport such a fetish?

Well, perhaps the article has sown a seed, — Banno

I think it sowed a smackdown. :razz:

There is. You are left without a team, which is where women will be left if forced to compete with men.
— Hanover

Hey, some of us are okay playing with the men who chose the alternate gate. We'll make a fine, convivial team and have more fun than the rah-rah-rah elite ones. — Vera Mont

The fun won't last long when every woman is cut, that is, when all the coaches realize that the only way to compete is by filling the roster with men.

It is my prediction (given that this trend continues), that diversity requirements will be introduced into competitive female sports (and eventually men's sports). It will begin with mandating the roster to meet a quota for cis-women. Down the road we will likely see race and disability added to the list of diversity requirements. In the end, the goal of sports will be no longer be "winning", but "diversity". From competitive sports to pointless activities, they will have lost all entertainment value (not that they had much to begin with). But not to worry, as long as sports gambling continues to increase in popularity, women's athletics will survive.

that fear isn't based in facts. — Moliere

My contention is: it isn't a fear at all; it's a pretense and part of the mask behind which systemic misogyny lurks.

How would this thread be different if it were entitled "What is a real man?" — Banno

It would be shit. Women are intriguing, nobody cares about men

"Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth... Interpersonal microaggressions, made a unique, statistically significant contribution to lifetime suicide attempts and emotional neglect by family approached significance. School belonging, emotional neglect by family, and internalized self-stigma made a unique, statistically significant contribution to past 6-month suicidality." — frank

Important to note this. One of the narratives going is that being trans is just a fashion or a lifestyle choice which is being peddled by the liberal-elite-woke-brigade. This reminds us of what's at stake.

The fun won't last long when every woman is cut, that is, when all the coaches realize that the only way to compete is by filling the roster with men. — Merkwurdichliebe

Have you actually met any people of any sex, or are you just going by magazine models?

Have you actually met any people of any sex, or are you just going by magazine models? — Vera Mont

I have met people, but I don't see sex in people because it is a tool of patriarchal oppression and I'm not sexist (sometimes).

What do magazine models have to do with making a roster?

And why is sport such a fetish? — Banno

That question would require its own thread

But, where I push back is in deleting prior designations when they continue to have application in particular contexts. — Hanover

I have a radical solution: we designate all restrooms to cis-men, and everyone else has to go out in public.

What do magazine models have to do with making a roster? — Merkwurdichliebe

Not much. No more, in fact, than making up a league of peers for any given sport.

it's a pretense and part of the mask behind which systemic misogyny lurks. — Vera Mont

Oh! Well -- I'm interested then. Care to say more?

I don't have any statistics, but if you look on the web you'll see instances of people who call themselves transgender women raping other women. How many do there have to be before it is too many? The vast majority of men would not rape women if they shared bathrooms with them. — T Clark

isn't this another example of addressing the wrong issue? It's not being trans that is wrong here, but being a rapist.

Let's address the actual problem.

Is it reasonable for women to object to sharing bathrooms and locker rooms with trans women. — T Clark

Why? And further, how can they tell that the other folk in their restroom are trans? Is this an argument for better makeup for trans folk? Or do women in restrooms routinely look at each others genitals?

No more, in fact, than making up a league of peers for any given sport. — Vera Mont

Peers as a selection process for a roster are perfectly fine when sports are non-competitive and pointless.

But in competitive sports, all that matters is "winning!". Even within the confines of a roster there is competition amongst teammates in the winning of a position - to effectively stand out from one's peers. There is no denying that in comptetive sports, there is a necessary dynamic that separates the superior from the inferior...from what would otherwise be peers (more or less).

isn't this another example of addressing the wrong issue? It's not being trans that is wrong here, but being a rapist.

Let's address the actual problem. — Banno

You are right, but, the actual problem he is addressing is one of rapists pretending to be trans. You know, to easily infiltrate safe spaces that harbor "easy" targets.

The rules and ideas about fairness we establish regarding competition are cooperation norms. — Mark S

I don't think this is correct. "Fairness" based rules for competition are derived from equality norms, rather than cooperation norms. And equality norms are fundamentally different from cooperation norms because there is no requirement for the intent to cooperate for there to be a desire for equality. That is to say, that when people compete, and there are rules established to ensure fairness of competition, that is the only required end, fair competition. And fairness is based in equality. There is no requirement that the people also cooperate, they simply desire equal rights.

I think perhaps you are under the impression that competing while following rules is a form of cooperation. But that is an illusion, the people are really competing against each other. That they agree to follow rules is a form of cooperation, but this type of cooperation is a restriction on what they are doing, so it is directed toward some other end, not toward the competition itself. The competition remains the primary end, and the agreement is simply to hold up some other end, that of fairness or equality.

So I think we need to separate equality based principles (therefore "fairness") from cooperation based principles, and see them as being derived from distinct ends, i.e., the means to different ends. The end for competition is a "win" which belongs to the winner only, the end for cooperation is something which is shared. Cooperation allows people with distinct differences, performing distinct activities, to work together toward the same end. "Equality" intends to make distinctly different people equal, in some sense the same. This makes "equality" an ideal which is fundamentally flawed, as oxymoronic, attempting to apprehend different things as the same.

Since the ideal itself is fundamentally flawed, problems will follow from its applications in practise. The problems become very evident in competitive sports. Rules of fairness are intended to ensure that all competitors start on an equal footing. Of course the competitors themselves are not "equal" in any absolute way, or else there'd be no competition. There would be a draw every time because everybody would have equal skills.. So the basic rules of fairness are actually intended to emphasize inequalities which are internal to the competitors by reducing external differences. This is done to encourage a "fair win".

Now the problem is that "equality" as an ideal, must have its limits. We define the boundaries, human equality means that all humans are equal, despite differences, and the boundary is at the limit to the species. In competitive sports we are inclined to put a boundary within the species, such that men and women are not equal. We justify this by saying it is required to make the games fair, and have a fair winner. However, we must respect the fact, that games are artificial, creations of human beings. And this sort of game produces a boundary or division between men and women in relation to equality.

So we need to ask the question of why would men create games to be played by men, for the purpose of displaying their manliness. Or is it the case that women created these sports so that men could show off their abilities, and the women could use this to judge them. Understanding the intent behind this type of sports is crucial to understanding this proposed inequality between men and women. Consider, that if men created these sports for the purpose of demonstrating to women that they cannot compete with men, and that they are therefore unequal to men, then this is nothing more than systematic sexism. Furthermore, if this is the case, then the men would not even actually be competing, they'd be cooperating in this system, by participating in these sports. Then, that this is competition is really what is an illusion, because the design of the game is not based in competition, it is based in the difference between men and women. So the players would be nothing but actors in a sexist form of entertainment.