Just curious–why is the surgical aspect the (potential) key for you?
Along these lines–suppose Sarah has a cis-gendered sister who developed a pituitary adenoma (discovered and successfully excised at age 14). However, before her tumor was discovered/removed, and as a direct result of the hormones it secreted in supraphysiologic amounts, she grew to be 6’8". Unsurprisingly, she totally dominated high-school basketball and volleyball in her district, and was subsequently offered athletic scholarships by numerous highly-desirable colleges.
Questions:
–Should she have been disqualified from playing high-school sports because her medical condition provided an unfair competitive advantage? Why or why not?
–Should the NCAA decree her ineligible for an athletic scholarship? Again, why or why not?
No and no. Because we don’t make laws and rules to allow for every completely unlikely exception. Nothing would ever get done if that were the case. Laws and rules are made with the norm in mind. And the norm is that biological males dominate females in nearly every physical endeavor.
I need people all in before I can consider them the stated gender in contexts where the stakes are so high. I’m comfortable with amorphous classifications where the stakes are lower for the people being asked to make accommodations than for the people asking. So in the case of the bathrooms I believe transpeople are more at risk of harm without accommodations than the general population is with them. There is a greater need, and I believe it should be met. That, to me, is fair.
In the case of athletic competition, I perceive the cisgendered population as potentially disadvantaged by the inclusion of transgendered persons, or more specifically MTF, at which point I move from “potentially disadvantaged” to “probably disadvantaged.” Things seem unfair to me here, and I’m opposed to blatant unfairness.
Just to be very clear, it was never the trans people I was worried about. I was worried about the law encouraging sexual predators by providing them with a potential form of immunity.
We don’t need to get back into it, though.
I’m going to go with Cortes on this one.
Hey, lookee here. I may have finally found something I agree with ED on.
Pigs may fly.
I know. I disagree with you on this.
1 Like
And who did this? I must have missed it.
1 Like
Eh, the flower thing, but I think there was similar back when Push was still here and the bathroom thing went over the edge. Perhaps I should change it to “non-manly.” I feel like I remember Estrogen Nation being brought up.
But as ED seems not to mind - I appear to be the flowerlifter (ha, good screen name!) - I will let it all drop, as Chushin has suggested. The discussion is interesting and I’ve derailed it unnecessarily.
(Although I would point out that my original “civility” post got five likes. Five! lol)
So, if we don’t DQ the pituitary-adenoma girl who gained an athletic advantage because of her medical condition, why would we DQ the TG girl who gained an athletic advantage because of her medical condition?
Chushin, I’ve admitted that I am the one having trouble with it, not ED - as I suspect you might have trouble if I were being piled onto for stating my thoughts - and have admitted that I wrongly derailed the thread. I’m not sure what else I need to do. I will again point out that my original post did not do that. It has been the scab-picking since, which you’ve engaged in equally and from my perspective are leading, that has pushed it to this place, where I keep defensively explaining “my book.”
You used the term “post police” after my first post on the matter, which simply explained why I no longer wanted to participate. I feel like this has all followed from that. YOU insisted that I should call people out directly, etc. However, I have stated that I will no longer do that. I don’t even care that much! If ED doesn’t care, my investment is minimal. I didn’t like the “spanking” comment directed at me by Push, or the tone in general by that time, and made my decisions about whether or not to continue debating the matter for myself.
I have been attacked at TN over the nine years I’ve been here and have either withdrawn or fought back, depending on my investment in the issue at hand and my feelings toward the poster I would be fighting. I’ve been pretty nasty at times. And I don’t apologize for it. Others can withdraw or fight back, too. We all have that prerogative.
Why are you so reactive to this? Fight away in whatever manner - I won’t comment. Again, I don’t care that much. I just thought I’d throw an “I think you make sense!” to ED. It wasn’t a giant indictment of every single thing anyone has said that was unpleasant, it was a casual statement. You are making the same currently with Cortes.
I would be sad if you took a break, as I value your perspective. Obviously this matter has gotten out of hand, and I apologize for my piece in it. But I think it’s your responsibility to defend yourself (to yourself or aloud) for calling someone a delicate flower if you feel it’s fine, not to ask that I never misinterpret an insult you’ve thrown while demanding the previous day that I explain myself and confront things directly. Stop pushing at me about it, and I will stop reading you “my book.” I have neither the desire nor the wherewithal to police TN.
Speaking of which, it has occurred to me in the writing of this that people may think I am responsible for Push’s break. I want to note that I had nothing to do with that. As far as I know I made my mention of the spanking comment after he’d already been suspended. I like Push and wish him no harm. If I don’t like the way he’s engaging in debate, I withdraw and engage with him elsewhere, where tempers are not involved.
He’s not here because the suspension both of us received appeared to be delivered out of spite. It had nothing to do with this discussion. It actually arose from a thread I started. I thought about just staying gone, myself. I hope he comes back, but I don’t blame him at all if he doesn’t.
1 Like
There is a pretty significant difference in the two medical conditions. Let’s see if you can figure out what it is.
I hope he comes back, too.
Choice vs non-choice, though I acknowledge the inconsistency in my thoughts on this matter. I really don’t have an answer beyond that. I simply don’t know what’s right, so I fall back on a “least harm” perspective.
I had problems with Chushin’s comment as well because it attacked the poster rather than the content of the post. To me, it was akin to calling EyeDentist a pussy.
I enjoy debate. But not when people stoop to comments like that and calling people names. It adds no substantive content and actually degrades and detracts from the debate itself. I’ve hung around this one because it’s been civil.
3 Likes
First, let me say I hope you don’t feel I’m haranguing you–I’m just enjoying the back-and-forth. If you grow weary of my incessant follow-ups, just say the word and I’ll stop.
Re choice vs non-choice: What choice are you referring to? I see two possibilities–first, that TGs ‘choose’ to be TG (I doubt this is what you mean); or second, that TGs ‘choose’ whether to take the necessary steps to render their gender expression c/w their gender identity. Or am I entirely off-base?
Re least harm–why does this not apply to the girl with gigantism that allows her to dominate her sports?