101010.pl is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
101010.pl czyli najstarszy polski serwer Mastodon. Posiadamy wpisy do 2048 znaków.

Server stats:

555
active users

@rysiek @muiren A simple Google search on #Zambia 🇿🇲 by J.K. Rowling would have easily dispelled such accusations. Zambia 🇿🇲 imprisons #LGBT people, so they obviously would not allow a Transgender player to represent them on the football ⚽️ field.

Some people are “too smart” for their own good.

@darnell @muiren it was exactly the same with Imane Khelif. She is Algerian, represented Algeria, and Algeria also is LGBT-hostile.

@rysiek
You are very misinformed on the nature of this controversy. It has nothing to do with being transgender. Please educate yourself before making harsh judgements.

@rcz not sure why you removed @darnell and @muiren from your reply.

But please, do educate me about this controversy? What is it *really* about, in your view?

@rysiek

I try to engage in a respectful discussion of a complex subject, so I will choose to take your request at face value, ignoring the obvious, while unwarranted, sarcastic undertone.

The controversy is about DSDs.
Particularly, about 5-alpha-reductase defficiency — a condition affecting male sex development in a way which leads to new-born boys being mistaken for girls, because of undeveloped extenal genitalia.

There is no suggestion of anyone being transgender in any of these cases, so the whole discussion of countries being LGBT-hostile is entirely irrelevant.

@darnell @muiren

@rcz regarding the tone, I think that's only fair, I did the same with your patronizing tone after all.

Before we jump in, I asked the other two people mentioned earlier if they want to continue being mentioned, I'll re-add them if they confirm. Should have asked first, to be fair.

@rcz and let's do one more thing and remove the specific person from this, as there are going to be a lot of uncomfortable hypotheticals in this thread, I'm sure.

So let' say there is a person called Amal. She has been assigned female at birth, and since then has participated in sports all her life, with considerable success.

When she's twentysomething, suddenly there's a test showing the result you mention.

What gender is she, in your opinion?

@rysiek
There are multiple conflicting definitions of “gender” — I take it here to be a synonym for “sex”, but you're free to specify a different meaning.

If the test shows Amal is a XY person with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, that would mean Amal is male.

@rcz right. You added the chromosome thing, we'll get back to that.

So a person assigned female at birth, participating in sports for years upon years (meaning being close quarters in changing rooms with other women), is in your opinion now considered male.

Should Amal be allowed to participate in sports as a woman?

Should Amal be allowed to participate in sports as a man?

And, how come nobody noticed until now?

/re-adding @darnell after confirming he's okay with that

@rysiek @darnell

I've only added the chromosome thing for clearer context, as, as I said, 5-alpha-reductase deficiency only affects males anyway. But sure, we can get back to that if something isn't clear here.

No, in my opinion Amal should not be allowed to participate in sports as a woman.

Yes, Amal should definitely be allowed to participate in sports as a man.

I don't understand the last question. What has nobody notices until now? Amal has definitely noticed “something is off”. After being mistakenly assigned female at birth, Amal might have not noticed anything until puberty. But then, when menstruation doesn't start, and instead external male genitalia do belatedly appear, Amal definitely noticed that — understandably very embarrassing and confusing — development.

@rcz I also assume Amal should in your opinion start using the mens' room now, as well, right?

Edit: sorry, mistakenly wrote "ladies'" room.

@darnell

@rysiek @darnell

Really, you've decided to pivot to The Bathroom Issue instead of actually engaging with the actual issue we're discussing?

Do you accept that your understanding of this controversy as of two hours ago was wrong on the level of facts, and that you've now learned important additional facts changing this understanding?

Did this realization push you to actually make an effort to reevaluate your opinion?

@rcz but if Amal must switch from participating in female sports to participating in male sports, then it follows Amal must switch from using the ladies' room to using the mens' room?

Is it not the case?

Amal was assigned female at birth, went through her life as a woman, and then at twenty something is informed that she "is a male".

Apart from being "embarrassing and confusing" as you put it, it's a huge practical and personal safety problem for Amal in LBGT-hostile places.

@darnell

@rysiek @darnell

Does it follow? Maybe. It's just a different discussion. We can have that discussion at some point also, bathrooms do have practical and safety-related issues and it's a whole topic. But why do you want to pivot from the topic we're actually discussing?

You asked me a series of questions on this sports issue, but what do you think?

We now know, and Amal knows, that Amal enjoys full sports-related benefit of male development, because this condition doesn't affect it. Amal still wants to take part in a women's kick-boxing competition.

Do you think it's fine?

@rcz @darnell I think it's fine, yes. I think Amal lived her whole life as a woman, and if she considers herself a woman, she is a woman.

I think somehow the "sports-related benefits" are only considered problematic in sports when it just so happens that a discussion of biological sex is involved.

Nobody is banning Phelps from competing with people who do not happen to benefit from similar physical quirks, for example.

@rysiek @darnell

I've disscussed the “Phelps argument” in some length here:
101010.pl/@rcz/112959498924669

TL;DR:
We don't have categories for Phelps' quirks. We could have, and then we would expect Phelps to be in the category for people with these quirts and would very much exclude him from the category for people without these quirks. That's how categories work.
But the advantage due to Phelps' quirks was actually relatively small, compared to the *huge* advantage due to sex. We don't have categories for all advantages, but there are reasons we do have categories for some advantages.

And no, it's NOT true that ”sports-related benefits” are only problematic when sex is involved. We do also create (and police) other categories related to sports-related benefits, and do not let people with those benefits into categories without those benefits, for well-understood reasons. There are age categories, weight categories, disability categories. I wouldn't be able to get into a children boxing competition, because I do have a “problematic” sports-related benefit of not being a child.

But let's dig a bit. Let's introduce another hypothetical person, let's call him Bob. Bob is just a plain guy. He's quite sporty and also trains kick-boxing, but he is the only male kick-boxing enthusiast in the area, so he feels left out when the women have their competition. He asks if it maybe the next competition could be organized as open-category, so that he could participate too and kick-box with the women.

Do you think it's fine to let Bob into the ring with the women? Do you think, for example, that there are any safety reasons not to let men kick-box with women?

@rcz @darnell I think weight and age and disability categories are enough to handle any safety issues.

And I also think in many places we used to have other categories in sports that we do not have for very good reasons – namely, racial segregation.

@rysiek @darnell

I think this is very misguided (and wishful thinking). There are still huge differences between sexes in muscle mass and strength, bone density etc., leading to serious safety concerns, even after controlling for these other categories such as weight, age and disability.

(Yes, there are attributes which should not, for good reasons, be used for categorizing sport,s such as race or self-defined identity).

@rcz @darnell well if we are able to establish that there are such "huge" as you say differences in muscle mass and strength, and bone density, surely we are able to measure those. Are we not?

@rcz @darnell grate.

In that case, why even bother with the "male/female" thing in sports?

If muscle mass and density, and bone strength, are the issue, and we can measure them, why not make categories based on those characteristics instead?

@rysiek @darnell
What you proposing is more invasive testing which would still end up with Amal in the category with all the males. Why would you want to do that? Just to avoid the word “sex”?

I mean, think about it: age affects a lot of sport-related things, that's why we have age categories — so you could also measure those things instead of checking a person's age.

Sure, but why?

@rcz @darnell I'm glad we agree that how invasive the tests are should be taken into account.

You also said that in your opinion there is a set of tests that can be performed to clearly and unambiguously establish whether a given person is "male" or "female".

So: is it possible that some people who (based on that set of tests) are considered "female" would still have muscle mass and strength and bone density, higher than some people who (based on that same set of tests) are considered "male"?

@rysiek @darnell
I don't know, but let's say it is.

@rcz @darnell and do I understand correctly based on our conversation so far, that in your opinion the "male" and "female" categories of sports disciplines are, first and foremost, about safety and fairness?

@rcz @darnell in that case, if there are "female-testing" people who happen to have muscle mass and strength and bone density above some "male-testing" people, the "male" and "female" categories fail at that stated goal.

If, instead, the muscle mass and strength and bone density testing was used, it would *achieve* that goal more successfully.

Would you not agree?

@rysiek @darnell
Still, you're proposing highly invasive testing based on a hypothetical problem. You only proposed that there could theoretically be such people — who are these people?

There could be 8 year old boys who have the physique of 15 year old boys — it is possible! — which would prove a safety concern in children sports based on age categories. Do we now, based on that possibility we have now identified, say that age categories have failed, and do we seriously propose replacing them with extensive invasive testing across the board?

@rcz @darnell I don't know, I am not the one proposing invasive testing in sports in the first place.

Gender-related testing is pretty damn invasive. Especially in very public cases like Amal's.

And I would not be surprised if gender-related testing was more often applied to people participating in female disciplines, than male.

Would you agree that is pretty likely to be the case, based on the fact that the stated purpose is safety and fairness, and men are assumed to have a benefit?

@rysiek @darnell

What you did in your hypothetical is to point to a (theoretical and unspecified) safety concern NOT related to sex, and complain that sex category didn't remove it. You're applying an impossible standard: you demand that when sex category is established, then no safety concern must ever present for any reason ever, even theoretically.

We don't expect that standard from any other measure.

Yes, sex testing would mostly affect female sport, that's true.

No, for nearly all athletes, except only for the very rare cases where more diagnostics after screening is required for health reasons anyway, it's a cheek swab. This is not invasive.

@rcz @darnell

First of all:

> you demand that when sex category is established, then no safety concern must ever present for any reason ever, even theoretically.

No, I merely point out that the "sex category" is unnecessary if we're talking safety and fairness.

You mentioned three specific things – muscle mass, muscle strength, bone density – as the basis of why men and women need to participate separately for safety reasons. So I am using these. Any others that we need to consider?

@rcz @darnell secondly:

> Yes, sex testing would mostly affect female sport

That means that there could be people who based on your set of tests would be considered "female" that might be participating in male disciplines. While having lower muscle mass, strength, and bone density.

Is it not unfair and unsafe for them to do so?

If you believe we should be testing anyone, why not test everyone?

And how is it not considered misogynist to make women jump through hoops men don't have to?

@rysiek @rcz @darnell @lxo the reason this is interpreted as prejudice is the assertion that someone raised as a woman, who identifies as a woman, and who has always been treated as a woman is actually not a woman, but a "man with underdeveloped external genitalia". Accepting that argument means accepting that trans women aren't women, which is obviously transphobic. The nuance isn't complicated.

Radek Czajka

@mjg59

“You can't make this argument because it leads me to a conclusion I don't accept” is literally the definition of prejudice.

@rysiek @darnell @lxo

@rcz @rysiek @darnell @lxo You can make this argument, it's just you can't simultaneously make this argument and believe that trans women are women. And if you don't believe the latter, you're transphobic.

@mjg59

You're certainly entitled to that prejudice.

@rysiek @darnell @lxo

@mjg59

I'm not interested in pivoting to that discussion, certainly in this form. I've had enough contact with priests in my life to recognize it for what it is.

What you're doing here is assuming that everyone either shares your metaphysical beliefs or is immoral. This is an extreme form of prejudice, bigotry.

It's certainly fine to attach moral judgement to sharing moral beliefs, e.g. “everyone deserves dignity” — if you don't believe that, people will rightly judge you.

But it becomes bigotry when moral judgement is attached to sharing metaphysical beliefs, like “people have souls”. Even if you believe there's a moral value connected to that metaphysical belief, like if you think: “if people don't believe they have souls, they'll have no reason not to kill one another!” — you *are* bigoted if you assume that people who don't believe in souls are immoral.

This distinction is important. People are entitled to have different metaphysical beliefs than you and they aren't immoral for it. If you start judging them for that, that's just your bigotry.

What you're presenting is clearly a metaphysical belief, not a moral one — there's no inherent moral value to being a man or a woman. You might connect some moral value to that metaphysical belief in your worldview, but that's on you.

So what you're presenting is bigotry, by virtue of saying: either everyone shares my metaphysical belief, or they are immoral.

You're being bigoted.

Stop that.

@rysiek @darnell @lxo

@rcz @rysiek @darnell @lxo There's no inherent moral value to being a man or a woman, but nor is there an accurate biological definition of what one is based on our current understanding of science. Suggesting that someone is not a woman because of your understanding of their (undisclosed) biology is not a position that's backed by science - but it is a position that enables bigotry and prejudice against trans women. Pretending that you're the victim here is disgusting.