GVFTA
BANNED
The fact a moderator is allowed to participate in this conversation and accuse people of phobias is crazy. What is KB going to do next? Hand out bans for using gender specific pronouns. This place is getting nuts.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Exactly this.King Boonen defined exactly what he/she/they mean by "transphobia".
That's a long, long way away from your "I hate trans women" example which I (or anyone I think) would agree is hate speech. Permanently banning someone for using the wrong pronoun is an extreme position IMO, whether they did it intentionally and repeatedly or not. Some people simply do not regard trans people as the new gender, particularly in a discussion about sport. In general it's a dumb position and disrespectful, but in the specific context of sport and fair competition, it's an entirely understandable view. As stated, I would entirely agree with Poly that this position by KB is "Wrongthink", and stifles reasonable discussion in favor of a view which is entirely debatable. I agree with you that it's not a left/right thing, it's simply an attempt at controlling the narrative in favor of a point of view. A terrible development for public discourse and free thought.
While I respect the right of the mod team to make rules, I don't respect this ruling. Respectfully, I think it needs more consideration.
Homophobia, transphobia, etc. are words people use to attack others. If you want to get someone to see the point of view that we're all humans and all deserving of the same kind of respect, making up phobias and assigning them to people isn't the way to engage. It's inaccurate, divisive, and counter-productive. Unless the intent is to degrade the target.
I was almost certain you were a Male, it was more making the point although I do try and default to they/them if I don’t know.Semantics is a branch of linguistics concerned with meaning and logic. Probably worth getting those two things right, and use of "phobia" in this context is pointedly incorrect. I would have hoped that would matter to you, and you might recognize your use of the term "transphobic" comes across as an attempt to attack those who disagree with you. Dismissing this as "semantics" only reinforces that impression.
I agreed with the part that I didn't quote and didn't have anything else to add. Nothing was meant by not including it other than point granted. I'm a male by the way, so you can call me "him" instead of "they". Regarding the latter, as I've said, your forum and your rules. I do agree this not only skirts the boundaries of what's been said isn't allowed, it seems clearly and specifically not allowed, unless one suggests this was started by staff.
I included the part of the article I wanted you to see and linked the article's full text. I've left nothing "behind". Let me suggest that what you so far think are my views, seem to be rather off. I'm not looking to confirm anything, I'm looking to have a discussion. I agree that testosterone plays a role, that seems incontrovertible so I am not including that bit or debating it. But you seem to be ignoring the points made about muscles being able to rebuild faster, and about simple size of heart, lungs, and musculature.
Cece is an anecdote. One does not make policy on anecdotes, but on groups as a whole, or trends, or bodies of evidence. Of course there will be trans women who are smaller. What point does that even make?
I think your focus solely on testosterone does not address all of the facts in the situation. The claim of "no evidence" rings false to me. We have physiology and performance data, which is clearly evidence. You have not addressed the fact that some advantages, such as their bigger bone structure, greater lung capacity, and larger heart size remain, you have simply repeated your assertion that testosterone is all that matters. I agree it matters. It's the only thing? I am as yet unconvinced. Not even close, actually, but I'm certainly willing to hear an argument why muscular performance, bone structure size, lung capacity, and heart size don't matter.
Removing someone’s fundamental rights seems a pretty big deal. That’s effectively what this thread is about. It’s seems a reasonable assumption that, if they have an unfair advantage you’d support them being removed from competition. Apologises if that’s too much of an assumption.You say "All this"? All of what? I'm sure I didn't suggest anything about the NBA or advocate for any particular policy or action. Very odd. Trans men? Of course people ignore trans men, because for most people this discussion is about unfair advantages, not about excluding trans people because they're trans.
If you have an issue with moderation then please feel free to contact the administrators.The fact a moderator is allowed to participate in this conversation and accuse people of phobias is crazy. What is KB going to do next? Hand out bans for using gender specific pronouns. This place is getting nuts.
There isn’t a huge amount of data, unsurprisingly. Most of it is looking at Male and female athletes and drawing conclusions. There’s one, possibly a few studies showing that an athletes testosterone level gives no indication of performance. That’s not hugely surprising either though.Aren't like all studies based on the effect of testosterone alone?
After much thought, and with a strong desire to avoid misgendering anyone, I first thought I would use IT, as in " I would hope IT wouldn't hand out bans based on misgendering someone."KB: "Transphobia and misgendering. Hanging on to a specific definition of a word (or in this case a suffix) doesn’t make it correct, we’ll trust others on this and the widely accepted view that deliberate misgendering is transphobic. We can even just go with it’s being deliberately offensive and the consequences will be the same. That’s why I said I’m not going to debate semantics. It’s a diversion from actually discussing the issue."
You should not get to decide who is misgendering or simply using the language we were taught with no offense to anyone. You obviously have the right to do that as a poster, but I hope your mod hat is off when participating in a discussion of potentially political nature. Especially when you've made it very clear where you stand on it.
I appreciate your opinions and that is just what they are in the long run.
In summary, and in my experience in working with law enforcement around this issue, it’s always best to stay neutral, even if your personal beliefs differ. You should never purposely go out to cause offence to a transgender person and you can’t simply say ‘I’m just using the language I was taught’ it’s a criminal offence, simple as that.
No one on this forum is talking directly to an individual whom has identified how they would like to be addressed. If you are going to threaten someone with law enforcement over the use of pronouns, you have lost your mind. Send the F*n crown service to Boulder, CO and have them arrest me. Or did I miss the part where this forum was declared a safe space.
better to remain neutral regardless of people’s beliefs. It costs nothing to give and take a little kindness and repect to others.
Pricey, good on you for working with the homeless. It's a very important issue that needs not only professional services but volunteers also. Unfortunately, more people are interested in saving animals than people around my part of the world.
Almost on topic. A couple of paragraphs from a review of a study that looks at the fairness angle. The last paragraph is nuts. If this is where we are headed, it will no longer be sport, but a social experiment.
"Far from arguing that transwomen be excluded, the authors are in favour of a radical change to what they describe as "the outdated structure of the gender division currently used in elite sport."
They consider possible solutions in their research however, some options value inclusion more than fairness and vice versa. The potential solutions include excluding transwomen from competing in the women's division, creating a third division for transwomen and intersex women and calculating a handicap for transwomen based on their testosterone levels -- similar to that used in golf.
Their preferred option is an extension of this with a proposed algorithm that could account for a range of parameters, both physical and social, including pyshiological parameters, gender identity and could include socioeconomic status."
KB: "Transphobia and misgendering. Hanging on to a specific definition of a word (or in this case a suffix) doesn’t make it correct, we’ll trust others on this and the widely accepted view that deliberate misgendering is transphobic. We can even just go with it’s being deliberately offensive and the consequences will be the same. That’s why I said I’m not going to debate semantics. It’s a diversion from actually discussing the issue."
You should not get to decide who is misgendering or simply using the language we were taught with no offense to anyone. You obviously have the right to do that as a poster, but I hope your mod hat is off when participating in a discussion of potentially political nature. Especially when you've made it very clear where you stand on it.
I appreciate your opinions and that is just what they are in the long run.
Yes that last paragraph is crazy. I just don’t see how they would be able to measure all of those aspects.
It’s such a wide variety of parameters, I mean, how do you measure socioeconomic status in terms of performance that would be fair?
Almost on topic. A couple of paragraphs from a review of a study that looks at the fairness angle. The last paragraph is nuts. If this is where we are headed, it will no longer be sport, but a social experiment.
"Far from arguing that transwomen be excluded, the authors are in favour of a radical change to what they describe as "the outdated structure of the gender division currently used in elite sport."
They consider possible solutions in their research however, some options value inclusion more than fairness and vice versa. The potential solutions include excluding transwomen from competing in the women's division, creating a third division for transwomen and intersex women and calculating a handicap for transwomen based on their testosterone levels -- similar to that used in golf.
Their preferred option is an extension of this with a proposed algorithm that could account for a range of parameters, both physical and social, including pyshiological parameters, gender identity and could include socioeconomic status."
you only need look at the Special Olympics to see mass classification of events and athletes - physical differences being more obvious than the mental ones, but by no means cannot be extended to other 'variations'I'd guess it's actually pretty easy. Socioeconomic effects are routinely measured in all walks of life (to keep within the rules lets avoid discussing other examples) and are very good indicators of performance. How well a population-wide statistic is going to translate to individuals is harder though. See below.
It's going to be difficult to discuss this due to the nature of any examples that could be drawn, but we can try. Socioeconomic status is widely measured and used in deciding a range of things. It certainly has an impact in sport. As it's specifically related I think we're ok to discuss that one example. From what I remember total GDP is the best predictor of a countries Olympic success (it's far from perfect but the correlations are very large). How they would propose to reduce that down to individual athletes I have no idea, and how they would take into account changes in socioeconomic status I don't know.
Phenotype separation is already used in a lot of sports. The obvious ones are combat sports. I think rowing has light weight divisions, maybe some other sports do this too. Their suggestion is an extension of this. The most obvious negative of this is it generally creates a multi-tier system where one is seen as superior, because they would generally outperform anyone in the other tiers. It's also quite hard to apply this in team sports, as different roles usually call for different phenotypes.
I have two big issues with their suggestion (I actually have lots but these are the headlines). We currently don't know what combination of genetic (and social) factors will most likely generate results for a single individual. While it may work as a general trend across populations, that doesn't always mean you can reduce it to a single person and it will still be applicable. The effect of this would be to handicap some people unfairly and the reverse.
Secondly, whatever you decide to use would have to be measured in anyone taking part in competitive sports to properly class them. Where does this begin? Genetic testing and categorising kids? I'm assuming they had just started watching Gattaca but didn't finish it?
Those are pretty different cases and I wouldn't say it's easily extensible, although I wouldn't say it isn't. My biggest issue is the second point I made, but that's getting pretty far off topic.you only need look at the Special Olympics to see mass classification of events and athletes - physical differences being more obvious than the mental ones, but by no means cannot be extended to other 'variations'
isn't that where the sporting issue really lies - "classification" of the athletes, or which category they should be competing in ?Those are pretty different cases and I wouldn't say it's easily extensible, although I wouldn't say it isn't. My biggest issue is the second point I made, but that's getting pretty far off topic.
Sorry! That was my bad...I replied about transgender legislation in Idaho.Morning hat on:
Political post and reply removed.
Cheers,
KB.