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 -
This sounds like it's just a matter of time. The base rate of trans is low.
It feels like talking to someone that never wears a seatbelt in a car. They haven't died. They insist they are safe. They were even in some fender benders and came out fine. They also say they drive more carefully than people that wear seatbelts.
Is it safe for them to not wear a seatbelt? They are standing right in front of you, it's hard to deny that they are still alive and fine.
My dad was like this for a long time, I don't think we ever convinced him. At some point he got a ticket from a cop for not wearing a seatbelt and that seems to have worked. I guess that part of the analogy doesn't translate very well.
I’m not 100% sure I follow, but I think that analogy relies on the conditional probability. As in, the level of evidence required to convince your seat belt denier is really likely to remove him from the pool of people you can ask.
If trans woman athletes have, as might be expected, a massive advantage over their AFAB peers—that’s not going to remove @guesswho from the pool of observers. It might result in bans, in the collapse of women’s sports as a meaningful carve out, but then we’d be talking about those. The absence of this evidence is, then, evidence of absence.
Or are you saying those just haven’t happened yet due to low sampling, and in ten years, we will be attending the funeral? I guess that makes sense.
More options
Context Copy link
I do not understand what your analogy is referring to here.
The same is true of the person that has not died in a car accident from never wearing a seat belt.
No Seatbelt person argues 1 they drive more carefully cuz they don't wear a seatbelt and 2 they drive less because of a fear of car accidents.
These are magnitudinal changes. Its unclear if the magnitudes are great enough to outweigh the very obvious base effect. Your chances to observe how big the magnitudes are is going to be screwed, because the rate of deadly car accidents and superstar athletes is very low to begin with.
The basic problem is how do you know that a very very low probability event has increased in probability. In my case I'm talking about a rare car accident being more deadly as a result of not wearing a seatbelt. In your case we are talking about a rare superstar female athlete being better at their sport from their former time as a male.
It feels a bit like a pascal mugging.
In both cases it feels like its impossible to prove the argument wrong. If there was a specific mtf trans person that went on to dominate their sport you could rightly point out that its rare for anyone to dominate a sport, and that this is just a single anecdote. If there was a specific car accident that killed someone who wasn't wearing a seat belt wearer then the no seat belt wearer could come up with a litany of excuses as well, super rare circumstances, it might have killed them even if they had worn the seatbelt, etc etc.
At some point in the case of super rare events it feels useful to a fall back to logic and physical reality. We mostly know the physics of car accidents, and wearing a seatbelt makes you safer. I acknowledge that due to selection effects it may be the case that the average no-seatbelt wearer might not actually be in any more danger than the average seatbelt wearer. I still advise you to wear a seatbelt in the car. We mostly know the biology of male and female bodies, and having a male body gives you inherent physical advantages. I acknowledge that due to selection effects it may be the case that the average mtf trans person might not actually have any advantages over the average woman. I still advise we not allow them in sports.
Does my argument about seatbelts convince you that people who don't wear a seat belt are just as safe? Probably it doesn't. But I do feel that the structure of the argument can lead to believing a lot of absurd things. I actually know of some cases where this type of argument has convinced me. Related to cars, but Child Safety seats lead to fewer living kids. Car accidents with kids are super rare, so child safety seats don't save that many kids, but the inconvenience of such seats in most cars leads to a lot of people not having third kids. The result is unintuitive and a bit absurd, if you don't think so then did you oppose child safety seat laws before learning about it? I'm a pretty strict libertarian and even I wouldn't have bothered to oppose child safety seat laws.
Then whats my problem with your argument when I buy it in a different context? I do feel, quite strongly, that the burden of proof rests firmly on the side of those trying to get us to believe absurd and unintuitive things. On the child safety seat thing, I still put my own children in child safety seats, and would do so even if the law did not mandate it. Logic and physics win out over statistics and reality.
But I'm not talking about a super rare event?
Trans athletes exist. More than enough to do a statistical analysis on.
In sports that are competitions between two people, the average win rate must but 50%. Do trans athletes in those competitions win statistically more than 50% of the time?
In swim meets with 2 trans and 48 cis competitors, we would expect the trans athletes to place in the top 5 ~20% of the time. Do they place that often, or more, or less?
In women's baseball, what's the average RBI of cis vs trans hitters? What's the spread?
Etc. None of this is low probability stuff, it's normal sports records of the type you could see at any moment when you turn on ESPN.
I believe the probability is actually ~0.8% (48C3 / 50C5)I assume you accidentally multiplied by 100 to get a percentage, saw "0.81..." and thought that it was a probability, and then came to 20%?EDIT: Sorry, I realise I misinterpreted what you said (I thought you meant both of them placing in the top 5) - You're right, please ignore this comment.
I should have said 'a trans athlete' rather than 'the trans athletes', sorry about that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, maybe I misunderstood your whole original argument. There is often a trans talking point that studies one elite athletes have never been done, and that is mostly true because elite athletes are rare. Which is why I was talking about a whole rareness based argument. But in that case of just studying regular athletes, yes those studies exist (and they aren't hard to find), and yes transwomen have an advantage.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref
Are you against transwomen participating in sports now? A ~10% advantage is nothing to scoff at. Though maybe I did this backwards and should have asked if you would pre-commit to changing your mind if you were shown a study with these results.
I don't blame you if the study doesn't change your mind. I think if the study had the opposite results I wouldn't change my mind either. I'd just be suspicious of the study and the industry of science. So don't interpret this as a "gotcha" post, I'm genuinely curious if this moves your needle at all.
So first of all, as I say in another reply, that's a measure of some specific atomic abilities, not of athleticism in general, which is the thing I specifically said we don't have a good measure of. I realize that's a mushy distinction and there's no real solid operational definition of 'athletic ability' beyond 'do they win more often at athletic competitions,' but that's my point... 'Do they win more often at athletic competitions' is the thing we actually care about here, and the data already exists in the form of actual results from actual competitions, so let's look at that.
But more importantly, my next sentence after that is
My argument doesn't hinge on the population average because that's not where competitive athletes are drawn from. It hinges on the positive tail of the distribution, which is why a lower population having a lower range of outliers is central to the argument.
We have a study. It shows trans people have a physical advantage. Physical abilities, much like mental abilities, are almost always a package deal. Just like knowledge tests can have g-loading, physical tests have an equivalent. It's why training camps for both baseball and American football often have athletes doing the same exercises for very different sports.
And this study doesn't move your needle at all?
If that's the case I just don't get the sense that a study would convince you, or anyone else really. Which is fine, I don't think I'd be convinced either by a study showing the opposite result. I would just find it too strange.
The study wasn't about the population average? The participants were people in the Air Force. Which is going to be a subset of generally more athletic people. But I've seen your objection elsewhere it's not the exact subset you claim matters. But then we come back to my seatbelt denier analogy. You can make the exact subset so tiny and specific that no study will ever convince you.
It looks like you are pretty busy in this thread. I'd say prioritize responding to anyone else over me. I mostly care not at all about this topic, it just happened to be at the top of the culture war thread today.
It's Bayesian evidence towards your side, of course. I'm explaining why it's not enough evidence to tip my model entirely, because I think the correct model is more complex than that.
I place a high threshold on taking rights away from people and restricting what they're allowed to do. Stuff like this is suggestive but I'm explaining why the model is too complex for it to be definitive. I'm not confident that there's no advantage, I'm confident there's not enough evidence of one to justify bans at this stage.
And again, I'm saying that there's a simple and direct measure we could be looking at instead -win/loss records - and pointing out that I'm not very persuaded by any arguments that don't involve referring to or caring about that.
Its not strictly taking away anyone's rights. As far as I know these athletes are still allowed to compete on the male side of the sport. If you object that obviously they aren't competitive, then I could point to everything you've argued above and flip the argument on its head. Has the exact study you want been done on the male side of things? If not, you have an isolated demand for rigor.
Part of why I don't care very much about this issue, is I'd be fine with the ending of gender separated sports. Tough shit if women can't compete, the world ain't fair. I say that with daughters who will very likely compete in high school and possibly college sports competitions. Still don't care. I understand I have a minority view on that point, and if you want to have female sports it makes sense to actually try and preserve them.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link