This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
While a Dane and a Slovene cycle up and down across France, the leadership of cyclings governing body, Managment Committee of the UCI, has decided that trans women aren't permitted to compete with cis women.
Leadership justified this step by claiming science can't currently prove a trans woman with 2.5 nmol/L testosterone enjoys no advantage for going through male puberty. Further and more harmful to cause of trans activists, it also claimed that presently science can't disprove that the shape and arrangement of the bones in their limbs may provide a lasting benefit to trans women.
The previously mentioned Science refers to a document by prof. Xavier Bigard: The current knowledge on the effects of gender-affirming treatment on markers of performance in transgender female cyclists (PDF).
The document contains data which is of interest even to those indifferent to the trans debate. On page 2 the gap in perfomance between men and women in different sports it neatly demonstrated. In rowing, swimming and running men are 10% better, while in pitch from baseball or a drag flick from field hockey the stronger sex is 60% superior.
Cycling rides over the footsteps of track field in drawing such a thick line between trans and cis women. As the linked article shows, experts in scientifical fields studying such matters, are expected to disagree with this decision. Likewise objections from human rights groups such as the ACLU are probably on the horizon.
So while trans activists enjoy unimpeded advances in gaining the right to access to children without their parents consent, they suffer setbacks in the field of female sports. Those opposed to the trans activist cause probably derive only hollow pleasure of "your rules, applied fairly" as sincere concern for competitors in a handicap category isn't their true motivation.
A less important decision also made by the UCI, was renaming "Men" to "Men/Open".
I can't speak for everyone opposed to the trans activist cause, but since you've decided to paint with so broad a brush, I feel it's relevant for me to pipe up and say actually, yes, sincere concern for competitors in female sports* is one of my true objections. It's not my only objection. But it's also not a fake motivation. Maintaining the integrity of competition is something I value, even in lower octane competitions.
*I'm not on board with calling femininity a "handicap" - We're a sexually dimorphic species, women and men are just a different kind of animal to each other. We don't call the Olympic 100 metre sprint a handicap race because horses aren't allowed.
This is my thing too. A lot of women count on sports scholarships to afford an education at all, and if trans women take all the spots, a lot of women, especially poor women will lose. The women Lia beat in the race were likely on scholarship, swimming was paying for their education. But now, as coaches realize that every trans woman who joins the team is an automatic win, they’re going to scour the men’s high school teams looking for men willing to play the role for free college (and a lot of people will do quite a bit to make college affordable).
See Andraya Yearwood. Got into college, got onto the college women's athletic team, dropped out of the college women's athletic team. Yearwood seems to be genuinely trans (or at least, they haven't detransitioned so far as I can find out) but running on the girls' team was the way forward for them. They don't seem to be going for the Olympics and subsequent professional athletics career (though granted, the Olympics don't seem to be permitting trans competitors yet so that was probably never going to happen):
They were in college in 2021 when this article was written:
They seem to have moved on now to study in Brazil. But would Yearwood have gotten the attention to go to university if it wasn't for the trans sports angle? Did they take a sports scholarship away from a cis female athlete who might have gone on to a professional career? 🤷♀️
While Yearwood seems to have used athletics as a means to an end, CeCé Telfer seems to be serious about wanting an athletics career, but has had problems with meeting the requirements for trans athletes.
However, the photo used for this otherwise mildly sympathetic (at least neutral) article is - unfortunate. Reading up a little, I begin to feel a little sorry for Telfer; they want an athletics career, they couldn't make it as a male runner, they switched to being female and had some initial success, then it all ran aground. I don't think they're ever going to get that shot at the Olympics they so wanted:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would love to see a new category called "unrestrained". An anything goes category that allows anything from cybernetics, PEDs, external instructions and bodily modifications. Similar to the Paralympics, it won't be so much about winning gold, as it would be about celebrating the diverse ways in which humans can manifest. Allow alternate rules. People can shout anything they want, women can go tits out to distract players, you can oil yourself up to be slippery.
Sell its rights to the most brutally viewership focused channel. Teams are chosen in a manner that encourages viewership rather than any objective sense of metric. Win of lose, everyone gets celebrated. Allow a lot more substitutions, so you can swap in people of the oddest profiles for the most advanced form of rock-paper-scissors.
WWE is more popular than MMA. Lets go balls out. The Lance Armstrong phase of cycling was the most fun anway. #BringBackSteroids.
This just devolves into a meta where everyone is claiming their motorbike is part of their body.
More options
Context Copy link
Keep an eye on the Enhanced Games, announced last month. Seems like a step toward what you want to see.
Fairly sure that's gonna be Viral Marketing for something that's not the Enhanced Games. Professional sprinters use enough PEDs that some dude is not beating Usain Bolt through using likely less, inferior dosages to him with a sufficiently worse frame and underlying athleticism for the sport.
The majority of athletes who've run a top 20 time in the 100m have been flagged for doping at some point in their careers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I saw an ad for something like this recently. It seemed to be a guy who wasn’t allowed to compete at the Olympics saying he’s helping start a league that allows doping. I’ll see if I can find it but if anybody else has seen it please share the link.
edit: /u/DoctorMonarch got it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ckuJqVJ_suc
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Honestly, they should make the men's competition the 'open' competition in all sports. All trans can join the open comp. Then the trans can argue how it's not fair for transmen to compete whatever. Has this been tried? To what effect?
I'm not sure about track and field or other races, but that's already the case in most sports leagues. Last time I researched it, women were allowed in the NBA, NFL, NHL, PGA, and a few others. FIFA was the only exception I found.
I know at least in Texas high school girls have the right to participate in male sports teams at public schools. It generally only happens when a school doesn’t have a female team of the sport in question, though.
In any case, this is not actually acceeding to the trans demand, which is to be treated exactly the same as actual bio women even at cost to those women, or third parties, or the general functionality of whatever they’re participating in.
According to one of my high school teachers long ago: that is national law.
It's a consequence of Title IX jurisprudence. Title IX was originally devised to ensure women had publicly funded sports teams. So, allowing them on the men's teams, if they wanted it, was a natural extension of the original bill. Men wanting to join women's sports teams is a curveball no one saw coming.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They don't want open categories and they especially don't want to compete with/against men. They want access to the women's categories because "trans women are real women" and putting them in with the men is transphobic, you're saying they're really men.
Until we get competitors who have been on puberty blockers since they turned twelve and then straight onto HRT and surgery as soon as legally old enough, we won't get equal comparison data between trans women and cis women. Because to date, we have "went through natal puberty and transitioned late in life/only two years ago" and in photos those cyclists are visibly taller, longer limbed, male-bodied (even with artificial breasts) and generally "yeah, I can see why you came in first half an hour before the rest of the field".
More options
Context Copy link
Men’s sports being open leagues is already the current state of affairs, for the most part.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link