The court ruling on LGBT ENDS THIS DEBATE

[thomasdixon]

The court ruling on LGBT ENDS THIS DEBATE
I believe the courts should rule that a person’s gender is the gender stated on one’s birth certificate and the gender classification cannot be changed, period, nada, zip, never.
(:-

[Purple Knight]

This is an honest question, a real issue and I would like to point out that it has absolutely nothing to do with any Nazi's or wings whether right or left.
Can we discuss it, or would you prefer to continue wondering what names you can call people? If the later, I'm not sure what can be accomplished.

I wish people were more willing to discuss it. I'm on the Left, and my position is that if we want to continue to use sports to exalt people who simply won the genetic lottery, the fact that sports is not fair should be celebrated. So the fact that one player on the field is endowed with a massive genetic advantage to the point that she's hurting others, is just par for the course. In this society, it seems we should cheer this exceptional athlete. (But there shouldn't be "women's" sports in the first place. Everyone should compete on the same playing field, and you will get all or mostly biological males, just like in basketball, you get a lot of Blacks and almost no Asians.)

However, I always found it unfair that if you win the genetic lottery by getting a high intelligence, your gifts are to be used for others and come with obligations, not privileges, and it is assumed that you should transfer resources to others. But when your gift is athletic ability, you exist for people to adore you and transfer resources to you for being better than them, despite the fact that you don't improve their lives and may even be making those lives worse.

I never liked this world of exalting people who win the genetic lottery of athletic ability, praising and adulating them for nothing they have done but for simply being born with the right genes, and pretending, because we live in a false workocracy, that they came by their trophies by hard work, anyone could have done the same, there are no biological disadvantages, and the hard work is what we're putting them on a pedestal for.

When we stop pretending that what we worship in athletes isn't just raw genetic ability, this issue will untangle itself like a silkworm case in hot water, the choice will be simple, and the answer to it will be obvious.

This issue is not that biological males have a huge and unfair advantage over biological females. The issue is that for every one of those top female athletes on the field, there are thousands who simply didn't get the right genes to play, and when you place a biological male onto that field, it makes those we have decided should be praised for their genes and told it is because of hard work, feel that same despair and hopelessness of those countless others who are not on that field, and are despised for their genes and told that it is because they are lazy.

[boatsnguitars]

I tend not to watch videos, but if the person was wrong, they are wrong. However, if they are right, they are right.
We can't know the specific context, we can't know the back story. Maybe whatever happened was justified. Maybe not.

But, one anecdote doesn't sum up an entire issue.

Is that fair?

[brunumb]

Everyone should compete on the same playing field, and you will get all or mostly biological males, just like in basketball, you get a lot of Blacks and almost no Asians.)

In other words, let's just eliminate sport for women. Same goes for children in that case. Physical activity is essential for a healthy balanced life. People enjoy getting together with like-minded others and engaging in team competition at all levels. Most of the world finds some form of sport entertaining and are more than willing to reward those at the top of their game for the entertainment they provide.

However, I always found it unfair that if you win the genetic lottery by getting a high intelligence, your gifts are to be used for others and come with obligations, not privileges, and it is assumed that you should transfer resources to others. But when your gift is athletic ability, you exist for people to adore you and transfer resources to you for being better than them, despite the fact that you don't improve their lives and may even be making those lives worse.

The genetic lottery applies to everything as far as living things go. Evolution is not about being fair. We get dealt our cards and we make the most of what we get. Everything is worth whatever people are prepared to pay for it.

I never liked this world of exalting people who win the genetic lottery of athletic ability, praising and adulating them for nothing they have done but for simply being born with the right genes, and pretending, because we live in a false workocracy, that they came by their trophies by hard work, anyone could have done the same, there are no biological disadvantages, and the hard work is what we're putting them on a pedestal for.

As I said, every attribute is part of the genetic lottery and you can't change it. People are born into wealthy families and have an advantage from the get go. People get beautiful voices, stunning beauty, extreme intelligence, while others get everything at the other end of the stick. Societies have established themselves around such facts of nature. We will never create the ideal where everyone is completely satisfied. We just try, hopefully, to be fair.

Women deserve their own spaces. Men, even if they identify themselves as women, should not be allowed to invade those spaces. Their outcome in the genetic lottery means that they don't get to do all those things that biological women get to do. A woman should not have to undergo re-education because she is uncomfortable being confronted by male genitalia in the change room. On the other hand, there should be no barrier to trans identifying people in situations where their actual gender is not a significant factor in what they do.

[Purple Knight]

The genetic lottery applies to everything as far as living things go. Evolution is not about being fair. We get dealt our cards and we make the most of what we get. Everything is worth whatever people are prepared to pay for it.

The question is whether society should cheer for and embrace that reality, or work against it, to make the world more fair. Murder is also part of nature. But we've decided that it's awful enough that policy should drive the force of society against it. If we had evolved from lions, or bears, one of the first items on the agenda of building society would be to stop males from killing cubs. It would have to be. And if we can't do that, then we can't have a society.

Now, if we want to cheer for unfairness, first of all, society should stop telling people who hit the genetic lottery on their intelligence stat, that their gifts are to be used for others. Second of all, yes, eliminate "women's" sports. And the Special Olympics. If you want to play against others of your ability level, do so. On your own time. For fun. But no part of society should elevate it. And scrap Affirmative Action.

If we want to try to bring the force of society to bear against unfairness, then things like Affirmative Action are laudable. Women's sports are fine, and since it's about ability level and fairness, not what gender anyone identifies as, yes keep biological males out of women's sports. But Squat Betty who can't possibly compete with the most powerful biological females? Well, we need to do something for her too. We can't protect the top-level female athletes from the competition of their betters, and tell Squat Betty too bad so sad she lost the genetic lottery so she can't play. We need to build systems for competition at every level. That means schools need to assess genetic ability fairly, on more than one axis, and build teams for everyone, so that no one is massively disadvantaged, and everyone is an asset to their team.

This is very much a "pick exactly one" type deal.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #44]

What good is a system where attempting to be fair to a few individuals results in being unfair to a multitude of other individuals? The only ultimately 'fair' system would be where everyone just competes against themselves and always wins. Everyone obviously succeeds at their own level. Giving everyone a medal just for competing achieves nothing and just diminishes any value that comes from competition. Participation in sports and competitions gives much joy and happiness to countless people. Even if one is not gifted enough for a given arena, there are thousands of others to choose from. Trying to manipulate the rules and procedures just to allow in someone who otherwise should not belong is not the way to go.

[Clownboat]

I tend not to watch videos, but if the person was wrong, they are wrong. However, if they are right, they are right.
We can't know the specific context, we can't know the back story. Maybe whatever happened was justified. Maybe not.

But, one anecdote doesn't sum up an entire issue.

Is that fair?

If what we see in the video becomes the norm, we will eventually have men's rugby, women's rugby and biological women's rugby. If not, biological men playing women's rugby will dominate, leaving little room for biological females to compete in the sport.

Consider boxing and MMA, or power lifting and such. We will need 3 divisions to keep things fair due to biological differences. Or we could open up all sports to both sexes, but surely that would eliminate most biological women from even having a chance to participate.

Do you think there are many biological females that could compete in the NBA currently? There is no rule preventing women from playing in the NBA by the way. Now consider the inverse. Do you think there would be many biological males that could could compete in the WNBA?

Surely you realize why biological women taking over men's sports is a non issue, right? If so, you should be able to see the inverse I would think with biological men taking over women's sports.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #44]

What good is a system where attempting to be fair to a few individuals results in being unfair to a multitude of other individuals? The only ultimately 'fair' system would be where everyone just competes against themselves and always wins. Everyone obviously succeeds at their own level. Giving everyone a medal just for competing achieves nothing and just diminishes any value that comes from competition. Participation in sports and competitions gives much joy and happiness to countless people. Even if one is not gifted enough for a given arena, there are thousands of others to choose from. Trying to manipulate the rules and procedures just to allow in someone who otherwise should not belong is not the way to go.

This applies to females then. If we shouldn't have reasoned matchmaking so everyone can be an asset to their team, then it's just too bad if you're born female, or born with a disability.

Imagine if someone was born male, with a disability that made him an exact match for a higher-level female. But she can win on the lower-level team and he's excluded because the only way we're willing to assess matchmaking is by making sure all parties in the lower-level team are female?

And what's the reasoning of allowing people with a disability that does not affect their sport of choice much, to compete in the Special Olympics against those whose disability does affect their sport? Allowing someone with a club foot into the Special Olympics to bench press is just giving him a trophy for having a club foot.

As Clownboat notes, many sports have more divisions. It is known that a large boxer will beat a smaller one and that this is unfair. And if we control for the size advantage, we can give more people the joy of competing.

If we assessed more advantages and disadvantages, and controlled for more of them, even more people now excluded simply because they lost the genetic lottery could have that same joy.

But, by the same token, if one known advantage is not controlled for, then neither should any other advantage be.

Making it exactly fair is probably an impossible goal. As you say, the only way to do that reliably (but I mean, we have like 10 billion people, so I imagine some may well be exact matches for one another) is everyone competes against themself and always wins.

But a more reasonable goal might be: Make participants in each tier near enough to one another in genetic ability that effort actually does make the difference.

We live in a fake effortocracy and I hope someone who leans conservative has a high chance to understand this. We all scrambled to grab privilege, heap it on those genetically most similar to us, and then, those who won were exalted when they said it was all thanks to hard work, which the winners put in while the losers were just lazy. The losers didn't like that, people are now scrambling to tear down privilege, and if they succeed, we may all starve.

We could have a genuine effortocracy without denying reality and tearing people down as lazy. We could instead include them and have them compete at their level.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #46]

I can't predict what the outcome is, and as I have noted, I think it's all an artifice to begin with (that we, as a society, have decided we MUST have vaginas at birth compete against other vaginas at birth, or penises that can ejaculate versus other penises that can ejaculate, or whatever.)

This is Conservatism against a new world. It used to be Women couldn't compete at all, or go to school, or join the army, etc. Conservatives fought against all of that. Then it was that Black people couldn't play baseball with Whites. That changed.

I can't predict it, and I am very sympathetic to women who feel they've only just won Title 9, and more recently equal pay oin some sports (against Conservatives - specifically Conservative Men, BTW) - and now they feel Men are so petty that women have their own realm that Men will have sex changes to ruin it for them - or, that's the uncharitable view.

The hilarious thing is that Conservative Men suddenly care about women's sports.... Or, rather, they don't, but they do want to create as much pain for Liberals and Trans people.

And, isn't it telling - doesn't it give you pause - that the only bone of contention, so to speak, is sports? Sure, they make a big case about some children getting puberty blockers until they are older (and make outlandish stories of mutilations - while praising circumcision), but for some reason all the Virtue Signaling from Conservatives is about fairness in Sports. I'll remind you, some people are born with natural advantages. That's why many people don't make it to the Big Leagues. Should we ban Black people (again) because of their natural abilities? Or, people like Phelps who have abnoramally shaped bodies and brains specifically suited to be a great swimmer?

Nope - it's all about the genitalia.

What is the real story here, in your mind? Is it about Sports? Are you worried that a woman is going to beat you in a race?

[Purple Knight]

I'll remind you, some people are born with natural advantages. That's why many people don't make it to the Big Leagues. Should we ban Black people (again) because of their natural abilities? Or, people like Phelps who have abnormally shaped bodies and brains specifically suited to be a great swimmer?

That is a very good point. We can either protect people of lesser innate athletic ability from the competition of those they have no chance against, or not.

[brunumb]

Should we ban Black people (again) because of their natural abilities?

Are you now saying that a certain group of people is endowed with special abilities because of their skin colour? Does the same apply to people born with different genitalia, physiology and hormonal make up?