Women's Sports and Lia Thomas thread

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Did the thoughtful post seem consistent with earlier posts? Or was it all a ploy?


I just checked and that post was her first post in the thread. However, I discovered that she had posted in other threads and she appears to be especially fixated on trans issues. That is practically the only topic about which she posts. Her issue with the trans community goes far beyond sports. She essentially rejects the entire concept. I considered linking to some of her other posts but instead I just deleted them. They were very revealing, but perhaps too revealing.




That's fascinating, because one of her posts was very affirming of trans rights, dignity, protections, etc. but seemed to "draw the line" at sports.

Now I'm wondering if any of her post was true. Maybe the whole thing was a fiction - a Black immigrant green card holder who only got to attend university through sports scholarships, who is generally supportive of trans rights but just not on this one intersectional issue.


Definitely sus.
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.


The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.



It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.



Obviously, the GOP does not care at all about transgender people. What is interesting about Scott's position is that it shows how the GOP has hardened its position. It's no longer just about sports, but the mere existence of trans people. I assume that focusing on sports didn't gain enough traction.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.


The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.


Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.
It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.


The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.


It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.


Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.


The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/
Anonymous
^The people who are genuinely
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:That is really unfortunate but I don’t blame you. I saw the transphobic posts too. I wish there was a way to have a discussion about trans athletes, the zero sum nature of athletics, access to universities through athletics, and the history of white feminists/progressives not caring about issues of women of color, without attracting transphobes. I don’t think this is an easy issue no matter what the progressive party line is.

I thought the black athlete poster had some very thoughtful points and I am really sorry to hear that she had transphobic posts.


Seems like we are having a tough time avoiding them here too.


I have no idea how this post could be considered transphobic. I wrote it, and I was trying to NOT be transphobic. I guess maybe you never want transwomen athletes ever discussed at all?


I guess try harder next time?

Or, you know, you just could try to not be transphobic in general.


Very often, things don't exist in a simple binary. Like with many issues, where people stand on transgender issues is a spectrum. Just because someone is not standing exactly where you are on the spectrum does not mean that they are transphobic. Transphobes prevent civil discussions about topics such as the participation of trans women in sports, but so do those who are absolutists in support of the trans community. I would submit that someone who is "trying not to be transphobic" is infinitely better than someone who is quite happy to be transphobic. Let's encourage those who we believe to be on the correct path rather than discourage and insult them.


OK - interesting perspective. I guess it depends if PP is genuinely trying not to be transphobic -OR- is just trying word things differently so their posts aren't deleted? From the comments above it doesn't seem like the underlying sentiment has changed.


DP. Still not seeing the transphobia in the first quoted post. I guess I don't know when I see it.


NP here. I don't see a whiff of transphobia in that post in question either. It's strange. That poster is anti-athlete though, for sure.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:That is really unfortunate but I don’t blame you. I saw the transphobic posts too. I wish there was a way to have a discussion about trans athletes, the zero sum nature of athletics, access to universities through athletics, and the history of white feminists/progressives not caring about issues of women of color, without attracting transphobes. I don’t think this is an easy issue no matter what the progressive party line is.

I thought the black athlete poster had some very thoughtful points and I am really sorry to hear that she had transphobic posts.


Seems like we are having a tough time avoiding them here too.


I’m the person who wrote the post above and after reading the rest of the thread, I still do not have any idea why the other PP said it was transphobic. Is it considered transphobic by transactivists to even observe that if one woman wins a scholarship via athletics, another doesn’t? Because that seems to be what the other PP is saying, which, I’m sorry, is abject nonsense.

The closest explanation I got was some handwavy “you sound like the GOP” which is useless. If the definition of not being transphobic to trans supporters is to literally never observe the world around us, you are going to be in for a rough ride.
Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.


The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.



It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.



Obviously, the GOP does not care at all about transgender people. What is interesting about Scott's position is that it shows how the GOP has hardened its position. It's no longer just about sports, but the mere existence of trans people. I assume that focusing on sports didn't gain enough traction.


“Women’s issues” are always losers. Hate to be a Charlie Brown about it. It’s the opposite side of the same coin that democrats run into with women’s reproductive health.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:That is really unfortunate but I don’t blame you. I saw the transphobic posts too. I wish there was a way to have a discussion about trans athletes, the zero sum nature of athletics, access to universities through athletics, and the history of white feminists/progressives not caring about issues of women of color, without attracting transphobes. I don’t think this is an easy issue no matter what the progressive party line is.

I thought the black athlete poster had some very thoughtful points and I am really sorry to hear that she had transphobic posts.


Seems like we are having a tough time avoiding them here too.


I’m the person who wrote the post above and after reading the rest of the thread, I still do not have any idea why the other PP said it was transphobic. Is it considered transphobic by transactivists to even observe that if one woman wins a scholarship via athletics, another doesn’t? Because that seems to be what the other PP is saying, which, I’m sorry, is abject nonsense.

The closest explanation I got was some handwavy “you sound like the GOP” which is useless. If the definition of not being transphobic to trans supporters is to literally never observe the world around us, you are going to be in for a rough ride.


What do you see as the ideal outcome in college-level sports?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:That is really unfortunate but I don’t blame you. I saw the transphobic posts too. I wish there was a way to have a discussion about trans athletes, the zero sum nature of athletics, access to universities through athletics, and the history of white feminists/progressives not caring about issues of women of color, without attracting transphobes. I don’t think this is an easy issue no matter what the progressive party line is.

I thought the black athlete poster had some very thoughtful points and I am really sorry to hear that she had transphobic posts.


Seems like we are having a tough time avoiding them here too.


I have no idea how this post could be considered transphobic. I wrote it, and I was trying to NOT be transphobic. I guess maybe you never want transwomen athletes ever discussed at all?


I guess try harder next time?

Or, you know, you just could try to not be transphobic in general.


Very often, things don't exist in a simple binary. Like with many issues, where people stand on transgender issues is a spectrum. Just because someone is not standing exactly where you are on the spectrum does not mean that they are transphobic. Transphobes prevent civil discussions about topics such as the participation of trans women in sports, but so do those who are absolutists in support of the trans community. I would submit that someone who is "trying not to be transphobic" is infinitely better than someone who is quite happy to be transphobic. Let's encourage those who we believe to be on the correct path rather than discourage and insult them.


OK - interesting perspective. I guess it depends if PP is genuinely trying not to be transphobic -OR- is just trying word things differently so their posts aren't deleted? From the comments above it doesn't seem like the underlying sentiment has changed.


DP. Still not seeing the transphobia in the first quoted post. I guess I don't know when I see it.


NP here. I don't see a whiff of transphobia in that post in question either. It's strange. That poster is anti-athlete though, for sure.


I’m the person who wrote it and boy, people really are reading their own spin into what I thought was a neutral summary of the conversation. I’m not at all anti athlete. I think it is actually very good that women’s athletics at the university level both exist and provide access to disadvantaged women.

For the record, I’m also very interested in how mainstream feminist organizations pick their issues and sides, because there is a long and grim history of those organizations pulling the ladder up behind them and harming poor women of color. It is very common for white feminist feminist organizations to tell women of color that “we are all in this together” with a vague promise that they will get to their issues some day. Candidly, some of the exact language used by mainstream feminist organizations with respect to trans issues very much mirrors — almost word for word — some of the language used in the 1960s and 1970s to keep issues of Black women backburnered and deprioritized in those organizations.

How all of this intersects with trans athletes is interesting and I think a good and nuanced conversation to have. But Jeff cannot and should not spend his days deleting posts referring to transwomen as men (which, by the way, I have reported). I’m sorry DCUM isn’t the space for that conversation but I think Jeff is right.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Transgender issues can’t be discussed on DCUM. Jeff has made that quite clear over the years. If you’re interested in the issue and women’s responses to it, check out Ovarit. This is simply not the place to have that conversation.


There are multiple transgender discussions going on right now. You are confusing discussion of transgender issues with being transphobic. The former is allowed, the latter is not.


Jeff, would you be willing to provide your/this site’s definition of transphobia?


I am not smart enough to give a definition that will stand up in a court of law, but I think that a refusal to recognize gender identity is transphobia. In other words, purposely calling a trans woman a "man" is transphobia. Suggesting that transgender individuals have mental illnesses is transphobia. To a certain extent, I will follow the example set by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart with regard to pornography, "I know it when I see it".


You are obviously entitled to your opinion, and can moderate the site as you wish, but I don’t think this is transphobia. It’s just an opinion that some of us hold. Doesn’t prevent me from treating transgender people (and I have several as patients) with dignity and respect.


to their face


And?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:That is really unfortunate but I don’t blame you. I saw the transphobic posts too. I wish there was a way to have a discussion about trans athletes, the zero sum nature of athletics, access to universities through athletics, and the history of white feminists/progressives not caring about issues of women of color, without attracting transphobes. I don’t think this is an easy issue no matter what the progressive party line is.

I thought the black athlete poster had some very thoughtful points and I am really sorry to hear that she had transphobic posts.


Seems like we are having a tough time avoiding them here too.


I’m the person who wrote the post above and after reading the rest of the thread, I still do not have any idea why the other PP said it was transphobic. Is it considered transphobic by transactivists to even observe that if one woman wins a scholarship via athletics, another doesn’t? Because that seems to be what the other PP is saying, which, I’m sorry, is abject nonsense.

The closest explanation I got was some handwavy “you sound like the GOP” which is useless. If the definition of not being transphobic to trans supporters is to literally never observe the world around us, you are going to be in for a rough ride.


What do you see as the ideal outcome in college-level sports?


That’s a good and hard question. The short answer is that I don’t know. I don’t think the current situation is right and I think it needs changing. To be clear, I don’t blame Lia Thomas individually for anything, as she is operating within rules and hasn’t broken any rules. But I don’t think that the current rules, which are very favorable to transwomen, are right or fair.

If I ruled the world, we would spend a lot of time figuring out the physical characteristics that give biological men the advantage they have and then figure out how to measure when those characteristics have been mitigated. Testosterone levels simply aren’t sufficiently accurate to mitigate for the advantage conferred by male puberty. But surely, with enough study, we can figure that out. Then it is a matter of measurement. Transwomen who measured under the threshold would compete as women, transwomen who measured above would compete as men. I also think transwomen who transitioned pre-puberty should be classified differently than post-puberty transitions.

That, however, is a long and imperfect way off. So the question is what to do before that point. And this is where the zero sum nature of athletics becomes a real issue: while we do not know how to actually mitigate for the undeniable physical advantages of being born male, which marginalized group bears the burden of that exploration process, in a zero sum situation? To be totally honest, I’m not sure how that should be decided. The transphobic black athlete was very wrong about her transphobia, but she wasn’t wrong about how athletics has traditionally been used as a vehicle for access to education for disadvantaged women, and I do not think it is deniable that a very broad policy with respect to transwomen is going to have the effect of removing access to education for biological women who would otherwise qualify. I wrote up above about mainstream white feminist organizations and their horrific history with respect to women of color, and it really strikes me how similar the language used to exclude black and brown women’s issues from mainstream feminist platforms is now used to support access by transwomen to women’s sports.

So the short answer is that in a situation with zero sum results (and sports is unusual that way), I honestly don’t know what the best short term answer is. But the fact that we can’t even talk about the zero sum nature of sports without someone screaming “transphobic” is really unfortunate and frankly I think I t basically just hands the GOP a powerful election tool. Nuance is not a Republican thing, and so when transactivists refuse to engage in a good faith discussion, they are just essentially agreeing with the GOP that this is not a nuanced issue.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.


The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.


It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.


Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.


The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Transgender issues can’t be discussed on DCUM. Jeff has made that quite clear over the years. If you’re interested in the issue and women’s responses to it, check out Ovarit. This is simply not the place to have that conversation.


There are multiple transgender discussions going on right now. You are confusing discussion of transgender issues with being transphobic. The former is allowed, the latter is not.


Jeff, would you be willing to provide your/this site’s definition of transphobia?


I am not smart enough to give a definition that will stand up in a court of law, but I think that a refusal to recognize gender identity is transphobia. In other words, purposely calling a trans woman a "man" is transphobia. Suggesting that transgender individuals have mental illnesses is transphobia. To a certain extent, I will follow the example set by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart with regard to pornography, "I know it when I see it".


You are obviously entitled to your opinion, and can moderate the site as you wish, but I don’t think this is transphobia. It’s just an opinion that some of us hold. Doesn’t prevent me from treating transgender people (and I have several as patients) with dignity and respect.


to their face


And?


How do you think they'd feel if they found out you were disrespectful behind their back? Or found out you thought they were mentally ill?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.


The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.


It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.


Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.


The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.


Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.
Forum Index » Website Feedback
Go to: