Why are Trans Women Always the Ones Complaining?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Do any of these options describe a plausible reason all the outrage seems to be coming from trans women, and we never hear a peep from trans men? Is there some other option? Is there only a perceived disparity?

J.K Rowling got in trouble for not even saying, but very loosely implying, that only biological women used to be considered women. Trans women want into women's sports. Why aren't complaints of discrimination from trans men as ubiquitous?

I see a couple of potential reasons.

1. Biological women have been unfairly protected from competition and want to protect their privilege.
This is probably the most likely option. The trans women are right about unfair discrimination, and it's all real and totally bad-faith motivated.

2. Some or even most of the outrage may be in pursuit of unfair, unearned privilege.
We can't discount this, because, after all, trans women left an unprotected class and entered into a protected one. To say that none of them are motivated by pursuit of privilege is a big assumption.

It may even be a combination of 1 and 2. But I'll present a third option nobody has ever considered before.

3. It's all a colossal misunderstanding.
There actually isn't any unfair discrimination. It's a misunderstanding due to what female culture is. Female culture is... not nice. To men, women appear as pure sweetness and light, but that's not how they treat one another. They constantly exclude, harass, and mentally torture each other, all while appearing to be "the nice one" to any men looking. They get away with it because men are stupid (...in that way...) and genetically programmed to fall for it, because every time a man is stupid, and falls for the deception, he picks the alpha female who is best at deceit, passive-aggression, and coming out on top, thus helping his offspring. But cross that bridge and become a woman, and the grass is no longer so green on that side. The fact that women exclude you for having a penis seems like discrimination, but it isn't, because if it was a wart, and they could get away with it, they would act exactly the same. By harassing you, making you feel unwelcome, dehumanising you, calling you not a real woman, they are treating you as every bit the authentic woman. This is simply how they treat one another. Women get initiated into this when they're about nine. If you weren't presenting as female when you were nine, or at very least in middle- or high-school, you are missing context.

[bjs1]

[Purple Knight]

If you think that having a league for biological women is unfair, then I ask: What other distinctions listed here do you think we should get rid of?

All of them except possibly the children/adult one because children are the only people on the list who actually aren't equal to everyone else on the list, which is why they can't vote.

The boxing one is tricky because having weight classes allows for more potential interesting matches, and I'm not saying that if people want to watch a boxing match between two 140-lb guys, they should not be able to do that. So if it's for television and it's mostly or entirely demand-motivated, then okay, keep it. But things like women's sports and the Special Olympics dehumanise the participants, implying that they are lesser and must compete in a lesser category.

We accept that there shouldn't be an Asians-only football league, or a white-only one, not because we don't acknowledge that Asians and whites tend to be worse at many sports than Blacks, but because it would be dehumanising to everyone involved to split competition like that. We don't do racially-segregated leagues because it would be dehumanising.

If you're a disabled biological female, you should be worthy of competing against the top able-bodied biological male. You won't win, but who wins is a story of ability, not equality. When you tell her she is in a different category, that's very nearly, if not right-out, telling her she's not a person.

But many women may not be thinking about this. Even if it is right that biological males and females competing is wrong, the women may not consider that. If all they think is, "Crap, if that male is allowed to compete in my league then I'll lose!" then that's protection of privilege. What do you think of the idea that female culture really is just a little meaner, more passive-aggressive, and exclusionary than male culture, and trans women are being accepted and treated just as biological women are, and they're just not seeing it?

[Difflugia]

[Clownboat]

If short basketball players have to compete with tall ones on the same court, then there's nothing sacred about dividing men and women per se.

(Exceptions to every rule of course)
'Short and tall' does not equal 'man and women'. The average 6' female cannot compete with the average 6' male when it comes to sports. That is why we divide men and women's sports.

Short basketball players do have to compete with tall ones, but that is not the same as biological women trying to compete with biological men in basketball.
What would we do with all of the WNBA players if the league was abolished and they had to compete against men? I would also like to point out that there is nothing stopping women from playing in the NBA, outside of not being able to compete against men that is, which only illustrates the differences I allude to.

With that said, don't women deserve to compete in sports like men do? Men are not losing out because of biological females dominating their sport. Only women's spaces are threatened. That in itself is telling don't you think?

Until high schools start having basketball divisions for short kids, complaints about the inclusion of trans athletes being unfair are just a smokescreen for the unfair exclusion of them.

High schools already have this. It's call being a team manager or being cut from the team altogether.
Both of my girls play high school sports and many of their friends were cut. If the boys that got cut from their team were allowed to compete against the girls, there would be no room for the girls. I personally feel that girls should be able to try to compete in sports like boys currently can attempt. I'm more than willing to discuss trans athletes, but not at the expense of women while men are protected.

Edit: If you think that having a league for biological women is unfair, then I ask: What other distinctions listed here do you think we should get rid of?

Any that make kids feel bad.

I can't support this currently. Youth sports and all it can do for a child is far to important than protecting kids from feeling bad.
Youth sports encourage cardiovascular health, burns calories, raises metabolism and improves strength and mobility. Plus, physically active teens tend to have more quality sleep, which is essential during the teenage years. Playing youth sports also supports long-term exercise habits. All these benefits far outweigh a kid feeling bad IMO. Being cut/feeling bad may just be what motivates one athlete to improve after all. Losing a match may make them feel bad, but it just might motivate them to try harder. Feeling bad isn't necessarily a bad thing and therefore supporting getting rid of anything that might make a kid feel bad is something I cannot currently support. Open to your thoughts of course!

[Purple Knight]

I personally feel that girls should be able to try to compete in sports like boys currently can attempt.

They can, they just can't win.

[Difflugia]

'Short and tall' does not equal 'man and women'. The average 6' female cannot compete with the average 6' male when it comes to sports. That is why we divide men and women's sports.

Your argument here is just a series of non sequiturs. Unfairness in sports is multivariate. Saying that we do correct for the differences between men and women doesn't somehow adequately explain why we don't correct for height. Furthermore, since "fair" is a much broader value judgement that has changed with our progression as a society, just saying that we've done things in a certain way isn't justification for continuing to do them a certain way. This is especially true since the variables we do correct for are arbitrary and already make no attempt to be comprehensive for any reasonable definition of "fair."

Your three statements just reiterate how things are as though that's an argument for keeping them as they are.

Short basketball players do have to compete with tall ones,

Yes. It's unfair.

but that is not the same as biological women trying to compete with biological men in basketball.

You're right. That's a different variable. It's also a non sequitur.

What would we do with all of the WNBA players if the league was abolished and they had to compete against men?

Is that what someone's suggesting? This is a straw man, slippery slope argument, and non sequitur.

High schools already have this. It's call being a team manager or being cut from the team altogether.

Separate, but equal, right?

Both of my girls play high school sports and many of their friends were cut.

So, you're OK with the distribution of unfairness as it is and don't want to change it.

If the boys that got cut from their team were allowed to compete against the girls, there would be no room for the girls.

Perhaps your girls could help sell concessions with the other girls that got cut.

I personally feel that girls should be able to try to compete in sports like boys currently can attempt.

You just said you want them to compete differently because they can't compete like boys.

I'm more than willing to discuss trans athletes, but not at the expense of women while men are protected.

Some women, anyway.

I can't support this currently. Youth sports and all it can do for a child is far to important than protecting kids from feeling bad.

Some children, anyway.

Youth sports encourage cardiovascular health, burns calories, raises metabolism and improves strength and mobility. Plus, physically active teens tend to have more quality sleep, which is essential during the teenage years. Playing youth sports also supports long-term exercise habits. All these benefits far outweigh a kid feeling bad IMO.

Then let's find ways to include all athletes. The very notion of being "cut" suggests that it's involuntary. If your concern about making sports more inclusive will result in your girls being cut, then that sounds like a deeper problem that isn't caused by trans athletes.

Being cut/feeling bad may just be what motivates one athlete to improve after all.

Wait... which side are you on? You said that you don't want your girls cut because of added competition, but it's good for the ones that are?

Losing a match may make them feel bad, but it just might motivate them to try harder. Feeling bad isn't necessarily a bad thing and therefore supporting getting rid of anything that might make a kid feel bad is something I cannot currently support. Open to your thoughts of course!

I have no problem with sports as such, but the arguments about trans athletes have only highlighted the problems inherent in competitive sports, particularly youth sports. If sports have the amazing benefits you claim (and I actually expect they do), then no child should be excluded from the sports of his or her choice, particularly if administered by the school. If you want your child to compete with a narrowly curated set of peers, then that seems the time to enroll in a private league where trans people may be excluded along with any other minority. Otherwise, if including athletes that are trans, black, or Jewish affect the opportunities for "normal" athletes, then it most likely has just shown us an area where inclusiveness needs to be improved for everyone's benefit, rather than circle the wagons around whatever exclusiveness is benefitting a privileged class.

[Clownboat]

[Purple Knight]

I just thought of this.

If the Olympics bans trans women from women's sports, nobody is stopping anyone from creating their own version of the Olympics that allows trans women to compete against women.

Children are forced to go to school, so it's important they're not dehumanised there. But nobody is forced to participate in the Olympics. Does the Olympics even make money or is it about the sportsmanship? Governments should stop funding it, if it discriminates, but after that nobody has any more right to complain about that, than they do about me only being willing to play my buddies in backyard basketball and not the Miami Heat.

[Purple Knight]

The question of whether the Olympics is more about sportsmanship or profit is interesting. If discrimination is perceived, withdrawing government funding could be a powerful statement.

Governments shouldn't be funding it anyway, except to build up their champions to compete. If the Olympics can't make back the price of the stadium and equipment with viewership then I see no reason why it should exist. I'm not a capitalist, but in this particular case, if people aren't interested enough in it to pay enough to watch it, to make back what it spends just to exist, why do we even do it? It's like if the world governments decided to fund some failed soap operas.