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 -
That people argue this blows my mind. Do you genuinely believe that males do not have a substantial physical advantage over women, or do you genuinely believe that going on hormones for a year erases that advantage?
You dismiss the growing amount of "anecdotal evidence" of 40-to-50-year-old men suddenly "transitioning" late in life and taking up a sport and absolutely dominating professional female athletes 20 years younger than them who've been in the sport for years because... there aren't enough trans women athletes to have taken over the leaderboards in every sport, yet?
read the rest of the comment
I did, and to be perfectly honest, I found it to be a disingenuous mish-mash of conflated statistics to present an argument that you imply ("trans women aren't really better athletes than cis women") but won't commit to, just vaguely handwave at. For example:
While I don't find your "strong reasons" convincing, sure, let's suppose that the top 1% of female athletes are better than the top 1% of trans women athletes. The issue with trans women in female sports is not about how well the top 1% compete against each other, but how trans women athletes on average compete with female athletes on average.
It's not clear to me if you mean the mean for trans women athletes or trans women in general (you seem to be deliberately fuzzing it a bit here), but what do you mean by "measured it precisely"? Are you claiming we have not measured strength, speed, arm length, aerobic capacity, grip strength, or other measures of ability for trans women and women? I mean, I can Google up the studies, but I'm reluctant to do so because I don't think this is a genuine question.
You are using statistical outliers when convenient and ignoring them when not: for example, one of your arguments is that if trans women were better athletes than women, then they'd be winning all the competitions, and they're not. This completely ignores how many competitions there are, how few trans athletes there are, how relatively new policies allowing trans women to compete are, and of course, as I said, the observable reality of second-rate, aging, out-of-shape male athletes transitioning, switching to the women's league, and destroying women's records. Does that happen every time? Does every trans women reach the top of the league? No, but from what I have observed, they almost always rapidly ascend far higher and faster than any actual female athlete of similar condition and experience could.
I think you're having trouble following my argument, which is reasonable because it has a lot of steps and I don't know how well I explained it.
To clarify:
The populations I'm talking about are only all cis women and all trans women.
I am not talking about athletes as a separate populations. I'm saying that all athletes are outliers from teh two general populations I'm referring to.
My point is that, if the cis women population has more extreme outliers on athletic ability than the trans women population, then most of the cis athletes will be better than most of the trans athletes.
We have, to my knowledge, done a few studies on average performance among trans women on a few simple isolated measures and tasks (like sit-ups). We have not, to my knowledge, done measures of population variance in a way that lets us compare outliers between the groups, or have we measured athletic ability on a holistic way.
The claim is not that if trans women had an advantage, they would win every competition. The claim is that if they had an advantage, they would individually have better personal win/loss ratios (or whatever is the most relevant individual metric for a given sport) than average cis women in their league/division.
We can measure that right now, regardless of how many/few trans athletes there are.
I agree there are some anecdotes of trans women winning things. There are also anecdotes of cis women winning things, so that doesn't mean much without statistics. Nor are all anecdotes representative, that's why they're anecdotes; maybe something bad was happening in that handfull of famous cases that we want policy to avoid, but that wouldn't say much about the median case which we should be concerned with.
Golf clap for the well-played condescension, sir.
This does not follow. The female population is much larger; there will be more outliers and probably more extreme ones. That says nothing about how well the average female athlete compares to the average trans athlete. That there are a handful of exceptional female athletes who can beat most men (but not the top men) in a sport does not mean therefore that most female athletes can beat most trans women.
I don't follow this issue closely enough to collect studies, or links, but this is one of the first hits when I searched "Trans women athletes studies." (Leaving out "studies," you mostly get articles by the ACLU and various news organizations claiming that either it's been "debunked" that trans women have an athletic advantage, or it's "unknowable.") Doing a little more digging, I see quite a few studies that measured more than just sit-ups.
And there is just... empirical observation.
If a trans women competes in a bicycle race and finishes third, she's #3 and you can easily say "See, two women beat her, so on average, they aren't better." Until you find out that this trans woman is 45 years old and just started bicycling competitively four years ago. Look, I don't want to dig up all the Jesse Singhal and Graham Linehan links because you'd dismiss them as motivated cherrypickers (and Linehan certainly is) but this is happening in sport after sport. If you actually wanted to do some sort of fair study, then you would have to factor in things like age and number of years in training which would pick up what I am claiming, which is that the advantage of trans women is such that a man who was a mediocre male athlete can fairly easily become one of the top 5% "female" athletes by transitioning.
All athletes are outliers from the general population.
There's no population of athletes with normal population dynamics over their athletic ability, because they're already selected to be outliers from the general population. There won't be a normal distribution of talent among athletes, they'll look like what they are, one tail of a different normal distribution (the general population).
When I talk about outliers and extremes, I'm talking about all athletes. Not just the best ones.
And my claim isn't that most cis women athletes can beat most trans women athletes. As I said a lot, no one has bothered to report on those statistics from actual competitions, so we are in a state of total ignorance on that question.
My point is just that talking about the average for the male population tells you basically nothing about what we're actually measuring here, which is outliers from the trans women population vs outliers from the cis woman population.
Ok, lets just settle on an operational definition here.
Is it your position that a world could exist in which no trans woman ever wins a single competition ever against her cis competitors, and yet it is still also true that trans women have an unfair competitive advantage that means cis women shouldn't have to compete against them?
Because that seems to be what is implied by you citing a case where trans women do not win yet still have an unfair advantage. So is this actually compatible with how you are defining fairness here?
If so, I think that's just incredibly silly.
Maybe there's some metaphysical sense in which it is unjust that a trans woman with fewer years of training can be competitive with a cis woman with more years of training (in this hypothetical).
But what actually matters for fairness is whether every competitor in an event has a reasonable chance to win.
If cis women can go to a million events and know that they will never win anything because the top spots are always trans women shattering all their records, that sucks and is unfair to them and unfun for everyone involved.
If trans women aren't over-represented among winners and cis women can easily win in competitions with them all the time, then the sport is healthy and everyone can have fun and no one is at an unfair disadvantage.
Anything outside of that fact is irrelevant, even if it annoys you.
You're stretching the definition of "outlier." In that the average person isn't very athletic at all, sure, but I'm not just talking about Olympic competitors, I'm talking about people who participate in neighborhood soccer leagues and the like.
If you were, then you'd stop making so many handwaving motions when we talk about comparing female apples to trans apples and stop pointing at female oranges.
No, we are not in a state of total ignorance on that question.
I am not sure if your phrasing is intentionally vague or not.
Do I believe it is possible that there could exist a (singular) trans woman who never wins a single competition against her female competitors, and yet it is still also true that trans women have an unfair competitive advantage that means cis women shouldn't have to compete against them?
Yes. Of course. No one claims that all trans women will be beat all women all the time.
Do I believe it is possible that there could exist a world in which no trans women ever win a single competition against female competitors, and yet it is still also true that trans women have an unfair competitive advantage that means cis women shouldn't have to compete against them?
Well, that would seem unlikely, but it's a meaningless hypothetical since we are observably not in that world.
It's not "some metaphysical sense" if their male physiology observably lets them compete at a higher level with less effort, conditioning, and training.
So if you or I competed against women, that would be fair, since women competing against us would have a reasonable chance to win? Or do you claim you would be able to beat any woman in any athletic competition?
So you believe we could only say it's unfair for trans women to compete against women if and only if trans women win every single time?
Trans women are over-represented among winners now. And women are not having fun because they're competing against men who can and have injured them (in contact sports) and are taking monetary prizes from them.
Trying to cast this as "Oh, you're just annoyed by trans women" doesn't work when you are studiously ignoring the facts you reference.
The point of hypotheticals is to get people to examine the boundaries of their ideas and see if they hold up and make sense in the least-convenient world.
It sounds like your answer is 'yes, we could have a world where no trans woman ever wins a competition but they still have a competitive advantage', but you won't come out and say that because you recognize it makes your position sound absurd.
And, yes, I do believe it is absurd for that reason.
We can't actually settle the question of whether trans women have an unfair advantage until we agree on an operational definition of 'unfair advantage'.
I've offered mine, I'm trying to pin you down on yours. But you won't do it, you jump from 'that's an unlikely hypothetical' to 'obvious physiological advantage' to 'yes they are winning more' to 'could you or I compete against female athletes' to etc. The metric switches to whichever thing is convenient in the moment, so it's impossible to address.
Forget reality. Indulge in the thought experiment.
In the abstract, what is your personal operational definition of an unfair advantage?
Once you say what it is in the abstract, we can start to discuss whether it exists in reality.
Are you saying, would it be fair for me, fat and desk-bound and asthmatic and with zero training, to join the women's olympic track and field event?
Yes, that would be fair.
I have zero chance of winning anything at all, no other competitor is at a disadvantage from including me.
Again, why do men's and women's leagues exist in the first place?
So that women have a place where they can compete and have a real chance of winning.
If including someone in the women's league doesn't alter that, then it doesn't interfere with the purpose of the league. It's fair.
And you are, what, intuiting this from 2 anecdotes across all sports and divisions in the country?
This is the central empirical question I'm saying we have no data on.
If you have data on it, by god please share with the class, it will solve this entire debate instantly.
If you're talking about 2 anecdotes where a trans woman won some competition, then no. That's not a national statistical trend demonstrating anything.
Dude. Several people have told you, in this thread and the past, that your habit of being condescending, disingenuous, and using moving goalposts and weaselly arguments, is infuriating.
To echo @raggedy_anthem, I appreciate that you are willing to stand and take on all comers with a heterodox (for this space) viewpoint, I just wish you'd stop doing it in a way calculated to piss people off (and then when they get pissed off, you blink your eyes innocently and insist you're only giving back what was served to you.)
So, to the quote above: no, dude, that is not what my answer is. And you know that.
"you won't come out and say that because you recognize it makes your position sound absurd" is, like "no matter how much it annoys you personally," a bit of rhetorical twerking to make it sound like you've just spiked the ball in the endzone and distract from the fact that you are weaseling around my actual argument.
No, I do not think we could have a world where no trans woman ever wins a competition but they still have a competitive advantage. I carefully explained that in the post from which you fabricated this position. If it were the case that no trans woman ever wins a competition, I would have to concede that this is pretty strong evidence that trans women do not have a competitive advantage. But that is not the world we're in, because trans women do win competitions.
Again, I said that clearly, you know what I said, you understood what I was saying, and yet you responded with this clearly illogical and ridiculous position and claimed that's what it "sounds like my answer is." No, it is not.
Stop. Doing. This. If you want anyone to believe you are engaging in good faith.
As I have pointed out (and other people have done in this thread, with more links and citations, because I'm lazy) there are plenty of metrics by which athletic ability is measured (muscle mass, strength, reflexes, endurance) and trans women clearly have an advantage over women on all of them. You claim you have offered your own metric, but it seems to be "if trans women won all competitions, or a disproportionate number of competitions." And when pressed on what "disproportionate" would mean, given the relative rarity of trans women athletes, you play games with pseudo-statistical arguments but in practice, it boils down to "If trans women don't win everything all the time, then they must not have an advantage."
Being biologically stronger, faster, tougher, and having more endurance on average.
I.e., the advantage men have over women that is the reason for having separate men and women's competitions, despite the fact that some women are stronger and faster than some men.
And if you lost weight and got in shape and trained, as any woman competing would? Would it be fair then, asthma notwithstanding?
If.
Far more than two anecdotes. Times like this I wish I were @gattsuru (not really), but here's the thing: I don't believe that even if I did hunt down all the links you need, it would change your mind because I don't think you are expressing genuine skepticism.
We do have data. It might not be enough data that you can't dismiss it. Like I said, with someone who doesn't have a pattern of winding people up just to skip away, maybe I'd be motivated to go hunt up everything I've read on the subject. But you know, I can't help noticing that here in this thread several people have given you links and studies, and you haven't replied to them. Curious, that.
More options
Context Copy link
So I am roughly on your side (in that I think trans women should be allowed to compete against women), but I'll bite this bullet. It is perfectly possible for this world to be true yes. A competitive advantage just means doing better against women than against men in this scenario. Whether you ever win, is irrelevant. An athlete who was on average 2170th against men and on average 2050th against women, is demonstrating they have a competitive advantage when competing against women than against men. The fact they never win doesn't change that. That being the case a world where no trans athlete ever wins could indeed still have them with an advantage.
What needs to be measured is not a win rate it's the comparative improvement. The change in their performance pre-transition against men, to their performance post-transition against women. This is because competition is about comparing you to your peers, we change the person (through hormones, surgery etc.) and we change their peers. If the worst man athlete transitions and is now the worst woman athlete, then who cares, nothing has changed. If the 1000th man athlete transitions and becomes the 1st top woman athlete, that might be a problem. But it's also a possible problem if they go from 2000th, to 60th. You cannot measure against winning alone because....
Again this is incorrect, it is so they have a fair chance of competing. For some that might be winning, for others it might be a fair chance of coming 20th. Winning is not everything. Imagine a race where the winner is a woman but the next 3000 positions are filled by trans-women. That is likely to indicate a potential fairness problem even if the winner happens to be an even greater outlier.
Where we agree, is that I don't really see this happening either. But limiting your argument to only looking at winners is trying to look at the best possible version of our position. And I don't think it's the position the majority of people (correctly) take. So that is the one we must engage with. If someone juices and comes 3rd, that is still a problem even if it doesn't change the winning statistics. So that must also be the case here.
Does transitioning change someone's comparative ranking enough that it constitutes a significant unfairness to other competitors whether those competitors would otherwise be coming first or 25th when weighed against the other factors involved. I think the answer appears to be no, hence why I agree with your position, even though I think your argument is wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
About 57% of highschool students play sports. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/statistics-on-school-sports-how-many-students-play-sports-which-sports-do-they-play/2021/07
Why do you insist athletes in general are a stastical outlier? I don't think anyone understood you were arguing this because it's really hard to realize someone is arguing that a behavior the majority of people do is an outlier.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link