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

631–640 of 643 posts

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

#631

Post by zaarn »

alentist wrote: post #612
zaarn wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I didn't know that race is determined by your chromosomes. TIL I guess. And I don't see how someone would identify as black if they aren't, it's a melatin level in the skin. The issues about race have less to do with the issues about transgender people, and more with their struggles faced by fault of modern society, in addition to the struggles one would face as transgender and/or female, which can intersect qu…

> Well, I didn't know that race is determined by your chromosomes. TIL I guess. Is that sarcasm? Do you know what chromosomes are? > And I don't see how someone would identify as black if they aren't By simply claiming they do. Is that not the criterion you're using for gender? "I don't see how someone would identify as female if they aren't."

>By simply claiming they do. Is that not the criterion you're using for gender?

And you still fail to see the difference between gender and sex and how that is different from culture and skin color. Congratulations.

>Is that sarcasm? Do you know what chromosomes are?

I didn't skip Biology 101.

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

#632

Post by alentist »

zaarn wrote: post #631
alentist wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, I didn't know that race is determined by your chromosomes. TIL I guess. Is that sarcasm? Do you know what chromosomes are? > And I don't see how someone would identify as black if they aren't By simply claiming they do. Is that not the criterion you're using for gender? "I don't see how someone would identify as female if they aren't."

>By simply claiming they do. Is that not the criterion you're using for gender? And you still fail to see the difference between gender and sex and how that is different from culture and skin color. Congratulations. >Is that sarcasm? Do you know what chromosomes are? I didn't skip Biology 101.

So your position is that a person is female simply by virtue of claiming that they "identify as" female. Is a person black simply by virtue of claiming that they "identify as" black?

> I didn't skip Biology 101.

Looks like you did. Chromosomes carry the genome.

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

#633

Post by zaarn »

alentist wrote: post #632
zaarn wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By simply claiming they do. Is that not the criterion you're using for gender? And you still fail to see the difference between gender and sex and how that is different from culture and skin color. Congratulations. >Is that sarcasm? Do you know what chromosomes are? I didn't skip Biology 101.

So your position is that a person is female simply by virtue of claiming that they "identify as" female. Is a person black simply by virtue of claiming that they "identify as" black? > I didn't skip Biology 101. Looks like you did. Chromosomes carry the genome.

I am aware Chromosomes carry the genome, but leading the question is not quite fair as well. Since sex and gender were topics, it was well evident that I was talking about Chromosomal differences between humans, NOT gene-level differences.

It looks like you skipped out on Biology 101, otherwise the difference would be clear in context and upon my elaboration.

Good day.

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

#634

Post by alentist »

zaarn wrote: post #633
alentist wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your position is that a person is female simply by virtue of claiming that they "identify as" female. Is a person black simply by virtue of claiming that they "identify as" black? > I didn't skip Biology 101. Looks like you did. Chromosomes carry the genome.

I am aware Chromosomes carry the genome, but leading the question is not quite fair as well. Since sex and gender were topics, it was well evident that I was talking about Chromosomal differences between humans, NOT gene-level differences. It looks like you skipped out on Biology 101, otherwise the difference would be clear in context and upon my elaboration. Good day.

> I was talking about Chromosomal differences between humans, NOT gene-level differences.

Since the former includes the latter, your excuse makes zero sense. It sounds like a convoluted attempt to obfuscate the fact that you thought "chromosomes" was synonymous with "allosomes".

> It looks like you skipped out on Biology 101

How so? This is a weird projection. You're the one who clearly didn't know what chromosomes are.

Finally, you still haven't answered the question: Is a person black simply by virtue of claiming that they "identify as" black?

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

#635

Post by nvarsj »

aaron695 wrote: post #400
nvarsj wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's truly an insane decision by the IoC and I'm sure the backlash will hurt the trans community. This is a privileged white male, the son of a billionaire (Dick Hubbard, founder of Hubbard foods) who didn't transition until they were 35. Prior to that they were a washed up male competitor who would never in their dreams make the Olympics. And now, they are displacing one of the best female weight lifters. No wonder…

This is pretty mean spirited. If "privileged white male" is going through hormone theory, then I don't think that's very privileged (privileged white male is an awful term) The technology here is still rudimentary, rich or not. This is not Altered Carbon. And their Dad is not a billionaire, it's in the 10's of millions, 150 employees according to wiki and he's a cereal manufacturer and also a Mayor. https://en.wikipe…

You're right, I misread and her father is indeed a multi millionaire not a billionaire. I can see how the phrase "privileged white male" can be loaded so I probably should have chosen different wording. However it is true in this case, and an important part of why people are angry.

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

#636

Post by memling »

realityking wrote: post #616
memling wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adding a third option, proposing sex being the superior categorisation completely ignores the existence of intersex people. This is another assertion that I also don't quite understand. (I want to emphasize I'm not trolling here—I'm genuinely interested. Topics like this are obviously highly charged and challenging to discuss in a fruitful way.) Vocabulary exists for discussing intersex characteristics, so the exis…

How would you address an intersex person? Their physical characteristics might have been decided by a doctor shortly after birth without any input from themselves. Their chromosomes might be ambiguous or just don’t match their physical characteristics. Like Hanne Gaby Odiele having an XY chromosome, looking (to me) physically female and preferring the they/them pronoun.

> How would you address an intersex person? Their physical characteristics might have been decided by a doctor shortly after birth without any input from themselves. Their chromosomes might be ambiguous or just don’t match their physical characteristics. Like Hanne Gaby Odiele having an XY chromosome, looking (to me) physically female and preferring the they/them pronoun.

My default is to use appearance in the absence of other factors; I understand there are cases in which this is challenging at best.

Even so, I'm still not quite sure how this addresses my question about how using biological pronouns instead of preferred pronouns somehow "ignores the existence of the intersex" as you earlier asserted. (Indeed, it seems as though the question of pronouns actually rather highlights the existence of the person, if in an uncomfortable and potentially discriminatory way.)

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

#637

Post by realityking »

memling wrote: post #636
realityking wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you address an intersex person? Their physical characteristics might have been decided by a doctor shortly after birth without any input from themselves. Their chromosomes might be ambiguous or just don’t match their physical characteristics. Like Hanne Gaby Odiele having an XY chromosome, looking (to me) physically female and preferring the they/them pronoun.

> How would you address an intersex person? Their physical characteristics might have been decided by a doctor shortly after birth without any input from themselves. Their chromosomes might be ambiguous or just don’t match their physical characteristics. Like Hanne Gaby Odiele having an XY chromosome, looking (to me) physically female and preferring the they/them pronoun. My default is to use appearance in the absenc…

> I'm still not quite sure how this addresses my question about how using biological pronouns instead of preferred pronouns somehow "ignores the existence of the intersex" as you earlier asserted.

My point, perhaps poorly delivered, was that not every person has a “biological pronoun”. How do you even define it?

There are people with XY chromosomes and female genitalia (and usually female identity): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

There are also people with male characteristics and two X chromosomes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

Addressing these folks by their “biological sex” (of you mean chromosomes) would be hugely insulting, besides the fact it’s not like we got our chromosomes written on our forehead.

Lastly, there are people with ambiguous physical characteristics. Often gender assignment surgeries are performed shortly after birth. Those folks usually get addressed by the gender a doctor chose for them when they were infants - and sometimes this turns out to be the wrong choice and doesn’t actually match their identity. They also don’t have a “biological sex” that neatly fits into the male/female schema.

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

#638

Post by jeremysalwen »

acituan wrote: post #574
jeremysalwen wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not making specific claims about where specific individuals are classified in terms of sex, because I am not an expert. I am implying pointing out that the idea of sex as a discrete variable with two choices in humans is wrong. It is usually bimodal, in the vast majority of people (including trans people), where the chromosomes are XX or XY, and the gametes are eggs or sperm, and the external genitals are vagina…

> I am implying pointing out that the idea of sex as a discrete variable with two choices in humans is wrong. > the gametes are eggs or sperm ... there is no law of nature that ... there aren't intermediate states for any specific dimension Sorry for butchering your sentence but wanted to respond very specifically. Sex, which is by far not exclusive to humans, has one primary purpose and that is sexual reproduction.…

It seems like you have decided that sex is solely defined by gametes. Ignoring for now that this is not the sole criterion of "sex" used in most scientific and colloquial contexts, even on your own terms, it is not true that all humans are one of two "sexes".

At a bare minimum, you would have to make an allowance for the "third sex" (as you define it) of those who do not produce any gametes. Remember, we are talking about sex in humans, not sex in human gametes. I do not dispute that human gametes are strictly binary; the question is about classifying individuals, for which the binary classification is obviously not absolute, even on the question of gamete production.

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

#639

Post by memling »

realityking wrote: post #637
memling wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would you address an intersex person? Their physical characteristics might have been decided by a doctor shortly after birth without any input from themselves. Their chromosomes might be ambiguous or just don’t match their physical characteristics. Like Hanne Gaby Odiele having an XY chromosome, looking (to me) physically female and preferring the they/them pronoun. My default is to use appearance in the absenc…

> I'm still not quite sure how this addresses my question about how using biological pronouns instead of preferred pronouns somehow "ignores the existence of the intersex" as you earlier asserted. My point, perhaps poorly delivered, was that not every person has a “biological pronoun”. How do you even define it? There are people with XY chromosomes and female genitalia (and usually female identity): https://en.m.wiki…

> My point, perhaps poorly delivered, was that not every person has a “biological pronoun”. How do you even define it?

My understanding is that historically the presence of the Y chromosome was considered determinative. One was male (therefore "he") if the karotype was 46,XY or 47,XXY or 48,XXXY, etc. Indeed, in discussions of the more common abnormal karotypes (e.g., Klinefelter), most of the literature I've seen uses the word "male."

> Addressing these folks by their “biological sex” (of you mean chromosomes) would be hugely insulting, besides the fact it’s not like we got our chromosomes written on our forehead.

With respect to chromosomes and forehead, that's not exactly true. There's sufficient divergence between male and female skulls that some gender expression surgeries target them.[1] I do understand what you mean, and I'm not trying to be snarky. Sexual differentiation is more than just genitalia, and we're well adapted to noticing those differences.

It seems like you're making two points:

1. Those with abnormal karotypes can have an experience similar to the normally karotyped: their self-perception and their anatomy might not line up, and they may prefer to be called by a pronoun that doesn't correspond with karotype or anatomy.

2. The experience of those with abnormal karotypes can and should be generalized to those with normal karotypes.

(I'm a bit fuzzy on (2) but I think I'm representing you correctly on (1). By all means correct me if I'm wrong.)

I could pretty easily see someone relatively conservative on the issue of pronouns (for, e.g., medical or religious reasons) agreeing that those with abnormal karotypes should be allowed pronoun preference but disagreeing with the second because chromosomal abnormalities are the exception that proves the rule.

I'm not sure how it helps resolve the initial question because it requires generalizing from a small set to a substantially larger one. It also offers a more clear reason why one's subjective experience doesn't quite line up with one's body (i.e., a clear abnormality on the chromosomes).

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7994012/

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

#640

Post by nandhinianand »

memling wrote: post #615
nandhinianand wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. is pretty close for ex: most brain functions can be called subjective, and therefore not that relevant. 2. is relatively a trend in how civilization has been moving. The cavemen bashed a skull that seemed unfamiliar or they didn't like, we don't we try to setup a legal system and judge a sense of justice. I don't think every subjective experience should be allowed to be used over other person's choices. I guess we…

> 1. is pretty close for ex: most brain functions can be called subjective, and therefore not that relevant. Sorry for the delay. HN is not a great forum for long discussions (on purpose, I guess). I've been noodling on this for awhile, and so maybe just blathering into the ether. I'm not sure that subjective and irrelevant necessarily go together. I guess the argument I'm thinking of is more this: my pronoun prefere…

I think we're on the same page..I was collating subjective and irrelevant together for the sake of the parent comment. and it is quite common in the "objectivist philosophy/meta-physical" view .

> Language shapes reality, Sorry I have disagree on this one. I don't think language shapes reality. It definitely shapes our perception, filters, and biases but shapes reality only in a very Probabilistic graphical model sense. And even then it shapes(as in cavemen---> civilization) reality as much as say, air shapes reality, mathematical formulae and theories shape reality . My usual stance on the gender identity debate comes along with the "freedom to swing your arm but not hit my nose" sense. In this case of weightlifting for ex: I recently saw a twitter mention comparing the same athlete before starting HRT therapy and now.(along with a co-competitor in the male category she used to compete with) It pointed out how much the gap between both the lifters progress has been because of the Hormones.

Anyway, I don't have a clear stance on trans-people competing in their gender category .. I think the gender based categorization in sports has to move further, but I'm ambiguous even about how the sports laws work on even doping. So since I don't have skin-in-the-game I only try to add clarity to the discussion without taking either stance strongly.

Post reply on HN