Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place

insidethegames.biz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 643 posts

Re: Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place

#481

Post by slipframe »

lenkite wrote: post #227
ako wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Golf, skiing, snowboarding, windsurfing, kitesurfing, mtb-ing, street cycling, motorracing: all have thousands or even millions of participants, so can be considered popular, but require participants to spend thousands on equipment, travel, access to slopes, etc. If you can do any of these, you're considered rich.

In a world with ~8 billion, a sports audience of a few million is considered quite niche.

Every sport is niche somewhere. Football[soccer] is the most popular sport in the world, but in America it's niche.

Re: Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place

#482

Post by zaarn »

flippinburgers wrote: post #462
zaarn wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about intersex females or women with androgen sensitivity? They are XX but might still get "the advantage of growing up with testosterone". Or women who have testosterone insensitivity and an XY chromosome pair (ie, are in all factors but their sex chromosomes female)?

This what-about mentality that fragments the population into increasingly small groups while expecting everyone else to adhere needs a course correction.

I don't want to fragment, I want these people to be recognized as what they identify; women. Even if they don't have the right chromosomes, there is atleast a dozen reasons someone might still have grown up as female or identifies female.

Re: Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place

#483

Post by zaarn »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #452
zaarn wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about intersex females or women with androgen sensitivity? They are XX but might still get "the advantage of growing up with testosterone". Or women who have testosterone insensitivity and an XY chromosome pair (ie, are in all factors but their sex chromosomes female)?

There will always be edge cases, and they should be addressed on an individual basis. Changing the rules that affect 99% of the athletes to benefit the 1% edge cases doesn't make sense.

Why not find a set of rules that works for 100% of people instead of leaving out the 1% for no other reason than "we have to continue with the rules we established as tradition".

Re: Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place

#484

Post by maybeOneDay »

atq2119 wrote: post #475
maybeOneDay wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2. Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm? If nothing else it seems to me to come down to basic decency and respect for others. It's less about one term being "privileged" (I must confess that word seems slightly unclear to me in this context) over another and more about the ease…

> Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm So I think a natural conservative argument there would be that the primary reason why we have sex-based (not gender-based!) pronouns in the first place is so that we can talk about biological categories that are important for the continuat…

That logic would also state that we should no longer call a man a man if he becomes infertile through choice (or otherwise), no?

> Messing about with mechanisms that are crucial to our survival should at least not be done lightly.

I disagree with this. Unsurprisingly so, given that I am non-conservative. I believe in personal choice over reproduction and I believe that this choice simply is more important than any tiny effect on societies survival - something that in fact means very little to me other than the 'coincidental' lack of suffering in people I care about/humanity in general. I'm not sure there's any objective value in the human race surviving, in fact if I could push a button that meant all humans would be incredibly fulfilled and lead happy lives and then naturally (peacefully, painlessly, etc) die out in 3 generations time I would certainly strongly consider doing so... I'm rambling now, though.

> the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing

I think that's because it's largely incidental - indeed, it doesn't stop them from becoming adoptive parents. It doesn't stop them from freezing sperm/eggs and creating children through more modern means. It may not even lead to infertility in many cases - I'll admit I don't know any detailed knowledge on that.

But most importantly their right to lead their life in whichever way they want, and to choose not to have children, is not especially relevant to anyone else. Nobody should be forced (or be guilted into) to have(ing) children.

Re: Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place

#485

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

ladyattis wrote: post #450
rocqua wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I am way of base here. But it seems to me like MTF athletes simply should not be allowed in sports where testosterone would be considered doping (or some other criterion to determine whether having been biologically male is a significant advantage). My proposal would clearly suck for MTF athletes. They'd be forced to either drop from competitions, or compete in the men's league. An MTF athlete competing in a…

The problem with using testosterone as your marker is that many cis female athletes have higher serum levels naturally than trans women in this context. In fact, to get the benefits of secondary sex characteristics for trans women they often have to have LOWER testosterone and higher estrogen levels for cis women in their weight and age. This is done to overcome the masculinization they've gone through. Basically, to…

I think using instantaneous testosterone is probably not the right call. Probably a metric like aggregate exposure to testosterone/other androgens over the course of one's life. It would need to be one signal among many -- for example, cis-men should not compete in women's sport regardless of whether they have very low testosterone. But it seems like a signal like this may be needed at some point.

Of course it is possible that we collectively decide that it's ok that cis women have no chance of winning the Olympic weightlifting gold ever again. That seems like a bad outcome to me, but I am only a single voice. If the relevant stakeholders are ok with that it won't be a great tragedy to me that my opinion is ignored. But, for example, my wife had a very negative reaction when I posed that scenario to her. It seems to me like as the implication of current policy becomes more clear, more folks are going to want to change the policy.

Re: Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place

#486

Post by alisonkisk »

esja wrote: post #366
nimbleal wrote: post #126

I may be a few years behind on terminology (?) but surely sports has everything to do with sex and nothing to do with gender? No one cares what pronouns an athlete uses, how they dress, what roles and behaviours society traditionally assigns/expects of them and how they respond to those traditions. They care entirely about biological advantages and disadvantages. So the division is based on — again unsure of the term…

Most people have no idea just how massive the biological advantage is. Movies and popular culture have conditioned people to think that females can hold their own against men. Individuals can, in some contexts, where the statistical distribution overlaps. For example a mediocre middle aged man can be beaten in strength or speed sports by an athletic 20-something woman. But at the tails of the distribution, where the…

Why should women's championships even exist? Isn't that just a pity prize? Either design a game where women tend to perform better (like certain forms of gymnastics) or where they tend to be more interested due to the cultural aspects (like cheer/dance), or let women compete in other areas of endeavor.

Why have leagues for women in basketball but not "men under 6ft tall"?

Is it to encourage girls and women to be physically active for a health life? If so, so we need competition for that? (I'd say no -- boys and men who aren't eite talent are also pushed out by the focus on competition)

Now if people like women sports due to the style of play in WNBA or Women's soccer or whatever, that's great; just make the rules and marketing and such to promote that style, and women will tend to be the participants.

Re: Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place

#487

Post by slg »

makeworld wrote: post #456
ellipsisfrog wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes 'woman' a special class in this regard? We wouldn't accept the same kind of self definition elsewhere. I couldn't decide to be a Native American without meeting some external criteria around my birth and life. Nor can I decide to be 6 foot 4 or thin even if I sincerely believed it. Someone who did self define like that would be regarded as delusional. Is there some principled way to decide what things one…

This is a difficult topic. A key difference between your example of height and something like gender is that gender is socially constructed, while height is a physically reality that can be objectively verified. So one part is that it has to be socially constructed. However, race is also socially constructed, so it's tricky. People who claim to be "trans-racial" are still regarded as delusional by society despite thi…

I largely agree, but I will add that we generally do allow people to self-identify their race. Lots of college and job applications that ask for your race will use this type of self-identifying terminology. The problem is when people are perceived to be lying about their identity as a means of getting some sort of advantage. Rachel Dolezal for example was caught lying about her parentage. Trans people generally don't lie to cover their transness (except maybe socially to avoid the attention their transness would garner).

This lying to get an advantage can potentially apply to trans people in sports too. People are always claiming that near elite male athletes who can't win in men's competitions will just say they are women to face easier opponents, but we haven't really seen any evidence of that occurring. This is primarily because the obstacles to check a box on a college application are so drastically different than the obstacles in front of someone who wants to publicly and officially change their gender. Considering that, I think the best approach is to not waste too much energy on "fixing" this problem until it is actually shown to be a problem.

Re: Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place

#488

Post by amarant »

_Nat_ wrote: post #391
amarant wrote: post #249

So how about a third class/sex? We have male competitions, female competitions, why can't we have transgender competitions? Seems to me to be the simplest, fairest solution, given that hormone treatments might give a person an unfair advantage that we're trying to keep out of male and female sports, but that are inherently impossible to avoid in transgender sports.

I'd guess that people who aren't clearly male/female would probably tend to be grouped in the more competitive category. For example, say that an intersexed-athlete (not simply male nor female) plays two sports: one where males are seen as advantaged and another where females are seen as advantaged. Then, the intersexed-athlete would probably compete in the male-category in the male-advantaged sport while simultaneou…

I really like this actually, it's the least unfair to any of the competitors (male, female or transgender) and the implication that transgender people are the best of both worlds is about as inclusive as it gets.

Re: Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place

#489

Post by alisonkisk »

zaarn wrote: post #483
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will always be edge cases, and they should be addressed on an individual basis. Changing the rules that affect 99% of the athletes to benefit the 1% edge cases doesn't make sense.

Why not find a set of rules that works for 100% of people instead of leaving out the 1% for no other reason than "we have to continue with the rules we established as tradition".

Because there are no such rules. It's a competition. Only a few people can win, and any rules are biased.

If you rolled back the clock and tried again, Michael Phelps would never be a champion weightlifter, and the best weightlifter would never be a champion swimmer.

Re: Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place

#490

Post by b0rsuk »

kristopolous wrote: post #238
b0rsuk wrote: post #199

I don't have a big problem with people who "identify as" someone else. I have a big one with people who insist that *I* must call them in a particular way. It clashes with the idea that freedom of one person stops where freedom of another person starts. What about my right to call another person as I see them? This is invasive. I'm not telling them how to live - they are. This is *gaslighting* and promoting *taboos*.…

> I have a big one with people who insist that I must call them in a particular way. It clashes with the idea that freedom of one person stops where freedom of another person starts So this would also apply to say, racial slurs and personal insults. Calling someone a name or the n-word instead of their name, that's a freedom? What about antisemitic slurs or insulting disabled people? How about just referring to women…

Is that something I said? Did I call anyone a nigger, eskimo, blanca, rusek...? Or are you just misrepresenting my argument with a superficially similar one that's easy to refute? (straw man)

It's a completely different thing. I want my right to use neutral, non-offensive terms to describe people as I see them and not have people jump at me for that. It is possible to insult people by using neutral terms, but I think I've done my part and the ball is now on the other side of the court. Managing someone else's emotions is not my responsibility beyond not using words that are intentionally hurtful and untrue.

I could meet someone in a dark alley and that person might take offense that I don't give him my wallet. He might be even more offended if I call him a thief and a mugger. It may be a good idea at the time to give him that wallet, but I'm doing that because of intimidation. I don't want people to intimidate me when I don't deserve it. Just because someone feels offended doesn't necessarily mean they're right.

The purpose of a conversation should be to reach a mutual understanding. We start on two sides and hopefully meet somewhere in the middle... if both parties act in good faith. It's not always possible to achieve with everyone, and it's not always your fault. Sometimes the other person is messed up, for example takes offense very easily or insists that I accept their demands. Sometimes the other person is just unreasonable. As long as they are, I'll just stay clear off them.

I think nowadays Western society is too tolerant of intolerance. I feel we celebrate the right of people to be offended. This enables very thin-skinned and manipulative people. I could live with the thin-skinned, but they're extremely hard to separate from the manipulative.

Post reply on HN