The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Prof. Doriane Coleman (Duke), Guest-Blogging About "On Sex and Gender: A Commonsense Approach"
"'An ideological preference for characterizing sex as a social construct, a stereotype, and a myth,' she asserts, denies the science of sex differences as well as common sense."
I'm delighted to report that Prof. Doriane Coleman (Duke Law School) will be guest-blogging this week about her new book, On Sex and Gender: A Commonsense Approach, which will be out Tuesday from Simon & Schuster. (Readers may be familiar with her past guest posts, chiefly on who should count as a woman in women's sports.) Here's the publisher's summary of the book:
On Sex and Gender focuses on three sequential and consequential questions: What is sex as opposed to gender? How does sex matter in our everyday lives? And how should it be reflected in law and policy? All three have been front-and-center in American life and politics since the rise of the trans rights movement: They are included in both major parties' political platforms. They are the subject of ongoing litigation in the federal courts and of highly contentious legislation on Capitol Hill. And they are a pivotal issue in the culture wars between left and right playing out around dinner tables, on campuses and school boards, on op-ed pages, and in corporate handbooks.
Doriane Coleman challenges both sides to chart a better way. In a book that is equal parts scientific explanation, historical examination, and personal reflection, she argues that denying biological sex and focusing only on gender would have detrimental effects on women's equal opportunity, on men's future prospects, and on the health and welfare of society. Structural sexism needed to be dismantled—a true achievement of feminism and an ongoing fight—but going forward we should be sex smart, not sex blind.
This book is a clear guide for reasonable Americans on sex and gender—something everyone wants to understand but is terrified to discuss. Coleman shows that the science is settled, but equally that there is a middle ground where common sense reigns and we can support transgender people without denying the facts of human biology. She livens her narrative with a sequence of portraits of exceptional human beings from legal pioneers like Myra Bradwell and Ketanji Brown Jackson to champion athletes like Caster Semenya and Cate Campbell to civil rights giants like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Pauli Murray. Above all, Coleman reminds us that sex not only exists, but is also good—and she shows how we can get both sex and gender right for society.
The Kirkus Review:
A pertinent study of legal, political, and cultural assumptions about a hot-button topic.
A legal scholar whose work encompasses sex discrimination law, elite sports, and scientific research, Coleman takes a firm stand in the heated culture war "between those on the left who want to erase sex and those on the right who want to erase gender nonconformity." The author addresses the book to "everyone who wants to understand what's going on for themselves, and who's inclined to be both inclusive and true to science and common experience."
Science, she asserts, defines sex as binary, consisting of characteristics that "build one of two forms of humans toward reproductive ends." Gender, on the other hand, is what our cultures do with our two physical forms, "the social constructions that are based on our sex," and "how we conceive of and express ourselves." Although the terms have been applied interchangeably in political and legal discourse, Coleman asks readers to hold the biological distinctions foremost in their minds. "An ideological preference for characterizing sex as a social construct, a stereotype, and a myth," she asserts, denies the science of sex differences as well as common sense.
At the heart of Coleman's discussion is the question of sex-based eligibility for elite female competition. Unlike participation in school sports and activities, where trans individuals should be welcomed, at the elite level, physical differences between males and females matter more, she argues. As a former competitive runner who competed at the national level, the author believes that however someone may identify, "a malebodied kid shouldn't be the girls' state champion." The author's careful, well-supported analysis is sure to be controversial, but, she writes, "my sense is that most people are not interested in a sex-blind society; they're interested in a sex-smart society."
A bold foray into messy terrain.
-Kirkus Review
And the blurbs:
"Civil rights for women matter and to get these right you can't ignore biology. This is a seminal book—the science, the law, the politics all explained so clearly. The extremes on the right and the left are dictating the narrative, but Doriane Coleman shows there's a reasonable way for the rest of us through all the noise."
—Edwin Moses, two-time Olympic gold medalist and chair emeritus of the United States Anti-Doping Agency
"Sex begins at conception. We don't construct it, it constructs us, from the cellular level to our complete, integrated systems—our physical forms and physiology. We're poised to reap immeasurable benefits from ongoing work in research of sex differences but only if, as Doriane Coleman argues, we can continue to be "sex smart" not "sex blind." The "common sense" here is just that; the information that should help form policy."
—Virginia M. Miller, Ph.D., Professor Emerita of Surgery and Physiology and former director of the Women's Health Research Center at the Mayo Clinic
"This book is a formidable challenge to our politics, on both the right and the left. Whether you agree with her or not, if you're interested in equality, Doriane Coleman presents a serious blueprint for common ground on matters of sex and gender. Informed by science, law, and personal experience, she brings compassion and intelligence to one of our most difficult cultural collisions."
—Guy-Uriel Charles, Harvard Law School professor and director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice
"Male and female bodies are fundamentally different, and many clinical conditions impact females differently than males. Conflating sex and gender is disastrous to advancing healthcare for women and to their opportunities for success from athletic fields to board rooms. In this essential book, Doriane Coleman shows that a just society celebrates gender diversity without denying science."
—Mary I. O'Connor, MD, Olympian, Professor Emerita of Orthopedic Surgery at Mayo Clinic and co-author of Taking Care of You: The Empowered Woman's Guide to Better Health
"Whatever your politics, you need to read this book. Doriane Coleman lays out the what, the why, and the how of our culture wars over sex and gender. She knows that most women want to be free from sex discrimination, not to be liberated from sex itself—and that ignoring this will mean that, again, we get the short end of the stick. Let's instead adopt her commonsense approach to living together respectfully!"
—Martina Navratilova, 18-time grand slam singles champion and civil rights advocate
I much look forward to Prof. Coleman's visit!
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I know a number of transgender people and none of them deny human biology.
Agreed. I guess we'll see if conceding this strawman of the leftist position on sex/gender is a rhetorical feint to get those on the right to pay attention to the critique of their position.
Ugh, of course you do.
Muted.
Well played sir.
Huh? Wow I've never seen quite such an ostrich as you. Trigger warning! I also say blatantly true things. I advise you to mute me as well.
Context matters. You are unaware of recent history, it seems.
Ok explain how context matters, I'd love to point out how wrong you are.
How does sex matter in our everyday lives?
Homer explains :
“Like the generations of leaves, the lives of mortal men. Now the wind scatters the old leaves across the earth, now the living timber bursts with the new buds and spring comes round again. And so with men: as one generation comes to life, another dies away.”
We mortals do not last too long.
And so, life is reproduction. Everything else is a hobby. For organisms that reproduce sexually, the “mattering” of sex follows directly.
Mr Butker is currently getting his butt rhetorically kicked for mentioning this obvious point, but it isn’t a “sexist” point. It applies equally to males and females. And it applies equally to humans and voles, crocodiles and oak trees, cockroaches and elephants.
life is reproduction. Everything else is a hobby
This isn’t even correct in it’s own terms. Kin-selection altruism is a thing, to the point of self-sacrifice even. Did you even notice your were consigning homosexuality to a pathology? Do you even care that you're reducing human life to what happens after you’re gone and thus missing out on the life part?
But most importantly, *you don’t get to tell other people what counts as success* when looking at someone else’s life. That’s authoritarian as fuck. And we don't roll like that here.
How would kin selection altruism contradict the centrality of reproduction to life ? It’s KIN selection. You reproduce your own genes by helping a close relative to reproduce.
Did you even notice your were consigning homosexuality to a pathology?
It is a pathology. Homosexuals have a psychological impediment which reduces their reproductive fitness. But if you want to argue that homosexuals by their sexual orientation, somehow manage to increase the reproductive fitness of their close relatives to more than compensate for their own disadvantage, feel free to put up a link to the research that demonstrates this.
Do you even care that you’re reducing human life to what happens after you’re gone and thus missing out on the life part?
I didn’t say hobbies were no fun. Here I am arguing with you because it amuses me. It’s most unlikely to lead to any additional progeny, and Mrs Moore would raise a questioning eyebrow if it did.
But most importantly, *you don’t get to tell other people what counts as success* when looking at someone else’s life.
Oh but I do. I get to say what I like.
That’s authoritarian as fuck.
Demonstrating once again that you have not the smallest clue what “authoritarian” means. Commenting on other people’s behavior is not authoritarian. That’d be when you move beyond commenting to forcing and coercing.
And we don’t roll like that here.
We who we ?
https://www.wtsp.com/article/life/animals/gay-penguins-hatch-baby-chicki/67-b8871755-f2a5-490f-bcd5-e7f9940c7eee
"Access denied" - but from the url you appear to be under the impression that all impediments must be fatal impediments. This is an error.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-49318080
Well with a new llink I can read your story.
From which I deduce that a couple of male penguins, who have an evolved instinct to care for eggs (or as the story explains, rocks) are working out their instinct on an egg that if it hatches wll be some other penguin's chick. Not sure how this assists the argument that homosexuality is other than an impediment to reproduction.
Before I could read your BBC story I assumed that the story was that a gay male penguin and a gay female penguin had created an egg together. So my remark was noting that homesexuality being a psychological pathology not a physical one does not prevent gay creatures reproducing, it is merely an impediment.
Isn't it great that we can be on to gay penguins so soon !
The argument is that homosexuality creates a degree of redundancy in a society. They can step in (as here) to raise orphaned children. They can take on the jobs and roles that are incompatible with raising a family either because they’re too dangerous, too time-consuming, or too distracting. Worst case, they’re free to devote practically all their attention to accumulating resources for their families / communities.
It’s not like humanity has had difficulty reproducing. Fertility is not the primary constraint on growth. Having homosexuals in the mix helps with the actual constraints like labor scarcity, especially in unusual professions, and the need for innovation.
Excellent, you're obviously writing one of those papers i asked Sarcastro for. I look forward to it.
And what, pray tell, is your alternative explanation?
Explanation of what ?
I think many people would disagree with your starting premise that anything that decreases an individual's chances to reproduce is "pathological." Although I would never want to be accused of disagreeing with Homer.
It's also somewhat ironic to quote an Ancient Greek (if he even really existed as one person) to support the argument that homosexuality is pathological.
You're teetering on the edge of suggesting that being possessed of a pathology is a moral failing. I'm sure you don't really mean that, but it's as well to separate the ideas of pathology and sin/disapproval etc.
Whether the Greeks, at some times, and in some places (for they were not consistent on this) were culturally accepting of homosexuality has nothing to do with whether homosexuality adversely affects your reproductive potential.
Perhaps it only serves to illustrate the point that homosexuality has existed for as long as we have written records of human culture, and yet the species continues to exist. Even if I accept your definition of pathology, maybe an evolutionary biological purpose is being served.
I didn't think I was teetering on the edge of a moral point, I would never want to do such a thing! Especially since I believe that homosexuality is neither a pathology nor morally wrong.
Perhaps it only serves to illustrate the point that homosexuality has existed for as long as we have written records of human culture, and yet the species continues to exist.
The same can be said of cleft palates.
Even if a genetic or developmental pathology kills all those who suffer from it, and prevents them having any children, the same genetic or development can arise in the next generation from the same causes.
Production lines do not infallibly produce fully functional as-designed output all the time. Nor ever will.
Homosexuality basically makes a man superhuman! Not having to deal with cunts like Ginni Thomas and Martha Alito would make any man more productive! I get it, those women are super hawt and so men want to tap that ass…but life would be so much better if the desire that urge didn’t exist.
Especially since I believe that homosexuality is neither a pathology nor morally wrong.
So you ignore the concept of seven deadly sins?
Seven deadly sins?
I don’t recall those being in the Bible. And I don't recall occasional buttsexing being one of the sins either.
You one of those Papists?
Luckily on a personal human level a persons' reproductive capacity has only limited relevance to how other people should or do treat them, which is what's at stake and issue here.
Sure. The limited relevance is to those parts of the treating that are relate to reproduction.
None of this is directly relevant to the act of reproduction, though, unless you're bringing it in for reasons that aren't clear.
I can't help you Sundance.
If you haven't discovered by now that dating, which is an important subset of how you treat people, can lead to a "relationship" and even copulation, and copulation can lead to children, then your time on Earth has not been productive.
Your fundamental problem, Lee, is that you completely ignore the role society plays in species survival.
Take ants. Few ants have any role in reproduction, yet they're obviously important to the species nonetheless.
I have Holldobler and Wilson’s magnificent tome The Ants, so I suspect I know a teeny bit more about ants than you do.
The answer – obviously – is that the great majority of ants that do not reproduce themselves, reproduce indirectly by assisting their relatives to reproduce – Kin Selection 101.
It’s genetics suported by chemical signals.
Obviously social animals have evolved to co-operate with other members of their group, as well as competiting with them.
To the extent that you can say that “society” is involved in the reproduction of social animals, that society has been constructed by evolution – natural selection ingraining co-operative instincts.
Exactly. Which undermines your whole thesis that individuals are only as valuable as their ability to reproduce.
That isn’t my thesis. My thesis is that reproduction is what life is about, it is the essential activity of living things.
If you want to turn that into a value statement it would be that reproduction is the most worthwhile activity that an organism can pursue.
Moving on to your sketchy understanding of biology. An organism’s participation in reproduction varies according to the reproductive scheme of its species. In a colony Hymenoptera species the workers are not participating in the zygote creation. But they are nevertheless reproducing by assisting the zygote producers in their colony. Who are their close relations. That is the only way by which the workers can reproduce. Thus they are pursuing the worthwhile activity of reproducing by the only means available to them.
Cooperation in reproduction takes many forms, but it is ubiquitous in sexually reproducing species. You, if and when you get round to it, will discover that no amount of hours alone in a darkened room will produce any little Randals. You’re going to need a female’s assistance at some point.
I will mention for your education that there are species of ant that capture members of other ant species and put them to work in the slavemaker colonies.
The slavemaker workers contribute to their own reproduction because their activity assists the reproduction of their zygote making close relatives.
But the slaves activity doesn’t contribute to their own reproduction because they are not related to the zygotes being formed. This - from the perspective of the slave ants - is not worthwhile activity. It is a waste of their lives.
You must be very concerned about climate change. Y'know, because of the future of the species.
Your point, such as it is, works better in reverse. If you don't care whether the human species survives, then it's hard to see how you could work up a "How Dare You !" about climate change.
Whereas if you do want the human species to survive, but you don't think "climate change' is a threat to its survival, then you can "meh" climate change at your leisure.
'If you don’t care whether the human species survives'
Climate change is real. The danger posed to human reproductive capability by the gender non-conforming is non-existent. Which shows how useful your dreary 'life is reproduction' utilitarianism is.
"That’s authoritarian as fuck"
Quit the drama. That's all you comment is.
One could easily interpret Homer to mean that the ideas of one generation die off, replaced by the ideas of a new generation. Reproduction is not the sole influence on the future of the human race; a teacher with no children but many students might have greater influence than someone with many children who reject all but their genetic legacy.
Analogies to sheep, lions and what have you ignore that humans send far more than genes into the future.
Well so do sheep, lions etc. What do you think coprolite is ?
But the only thing you can send to the future that lives is your offspring.
Nah. Among many mammal species males compete on the basis of fitness for access to mates. Males who win those competitions—based on an astounding array of fitness tests—supply a disproportionate share of the gene pools in their respective species. But many males turn out to be little more than genetic surplus, serving mainly as genetically expendable dominance test subjects.
Likewise with fascinating variations—including spontaneous reproductively efficacious biological sex changes—among fish. Birds are a whole other category.
What it all comes down to is the capacity of natural selection to counter adverse environmental change, based on re-shuffling a deck of already-existing genetic mutations scattered among individuals of the same species. Social behavior which facilitates that re-shuffling may promote species success in an astonishing variety of ways. To assert that anyone meaningfully understands that process is nonsense.
It may prove plausible to suppose inbred social characteristics affect genetic outcomes of populations. Perhaps more-socially-evolved species depend for reproductive success on social contributions to reproduction which do not involve gene transfer at all. For instance, what to make of ants and termites with their predominant populations of sterile individuals which will never pass on any genetic variability they may possess? Those are clearly indispensable to the reproductive success of their species, but play no part in its genetic heritage.
Of course plausibility is not proof. But neither is dogmatic assertion a pro-social indicator of genetic success.
Alas for Shakespeare, whose line died out with his grandchildren and thus has sent nothing to the future.
One could easily interpret Homer to mean that the ideas of one generation die off, replaced by the ideas of a new generation.
Well you could I suppose, but since he's describing the toll of humans killed in battle, rather than their ideas, and comparing it to the seasonal falling of leaves, and their replacement by new life, your interpretation would be somewhat eccentric. Ideas, not being alive are not of necessity, mortal. Unlike humans. That's why he picks leaves as the metaphor.
Moreover he is describing the death of the old and the birth of the new as an inevitable eternal cycle, not as progress. There's no suggestion that the new leaf, or new human, is a better model than the old leaf, or old human. It's just that the replacement of the latter by the former is the inevitable cycle of life.
Many of the ideas of one generation are mortal, though; the issues over which the battle that takes such a toll was fought, will be forgotten in time.
But the idea that one should be very wary of agreeing to be a judge in a beauty contest has managed to survive 🙂
'And so, life is reproduction.'
If you're too old to reproduce, turn yourself in.
You can assist your offspring to reproduce.
Obviously depending on your children's or grandchildren's personalities you may have to advise them to do the opposite of what you think would be best.
Or you could bounce your grandchildren on your knee, and provide free childcare. This is a job - contra Randal - that you do not need to be homosexual to do.
'You can assist your offspring to reproduce.'
With what, a megaphone and a chair by the bed? Weirdo.
I didn't say you needed to be homosexual. Just that homosexuals are more likely to be available to do it.
I was only joshing.
But you are waaaaay more likely to have a grandparent available to assist you in your formative years than a gay uncle or aunt.
And the reproductive opportunity cost of creating a grandparent for childcare is zero. It's a sunk cost, incurred long ago. But the reproductive opportunity cost of breeding spare, gay, uncles and aunts to help with childcare is definitely non zero. It's very difficult to see how you could make a spare gay non reproducing uncle a paying proposition (reproductively.) Think how many children used to die young - you don't want to go through all the way to adulthood and find that a survivor doesn't want to breed.
Obviously that kind of social system works out for some social animals - particularly the hymenoptera - but I'd like to see the math on how it could work profitably in a species like humans.
There have been human social structures where the breeding of some family members has been suppressed - particularly younger daughters - but it's difficult to see the advantage in evolution encouraging such non reproducing offspring to be homosexual. Surely better to have them ready to breed at need.
After all even worker bees - which are non reproducing females - can start reproducing in some circumstances.
These days maybe, now that people live to 100.
I had a secretary once - a very cheerful lady - who was a grandmother at 38 and a great grandmother at 57.
Oh, you're familiar with my extended Idaho family?
Sounds about right... for when the life expectancy was under 40, as it was until very recently.
A bit of a misunderstanding. Life expectancy in Europe was about 50 between 1500 and 1700, but that takes into account a huge amount of child mortality. Life expectancy was up to 60 by 1900, again taking into account high child mortality - but not as high as 300 years previously.
So humans have never had too much difficulty in lasting to 60 or 70 - so long as they could make it through those first 15 years or so. And grandparents are drawn fron that privileged cohort.
btw that secretary lady was working for me in the 20th and 21st centuries, not the 18th.
Even 1500 is relatively recent. You think a lot of human evolution has taken place between then and now? Some selective breeding, sure, but nothing fundamental to the species has changed in the last few hundred years.
Your using a deeply immoral framework that reduces humanity to basically nothing. There was a Star Trek episode about how deeply fucked up your ideas are. And of course Logan’s Run.
And you’re being ignorant about it even on your own terms – look up kin-selection altruism; quite a common evolutionary trait.
If you’re going to push ‘beyond morality’ bullshit, at least educate yourself for fuck’s sake.
Next you’ll be advocating for adultery for males, as it’s the biologically more efficient system. Or maybe just harems.
And then of course, comes the eugenics. For The Good of The Species.
And you’re being ignorant about it even on your own terms – look up kin-selection altruism; quite a common evolutionary trait.
Yes I know. A common enough evolutionary trait that assists kin reproduction. Which is precisely why it’s a thing. If it did not assist the reproduction of kin, it wouldn’t have evolved. Doh ! As I mentioned already the first time you brought it up.
Next you’ll be advocating for adultery for males, as it’s the biologically more efficient system.
Ah, a sentence to dismiss acres of real research. It’s more “efficient” for Elon Musk and Mick Jagger. But not for you. Playing the field could lose you more than you gain. btw I dont want to alarm you but women commit adultery too, but for slightly different reasons (see evolution.)
And then of course, comes the eugenics. For The Good of The Species.
No, not for the good of the species – for the good of MY genes. In species in which males compete for females eugenics is going on all the time, day in day out. That’s what the competion is all about. Pick me ! I’m the best ! Look at my fantastic tail ! Or horns !
You think that doesn’t go on nightclubs ?
Humans are unusual because males compete for females, but females also compete for males (because human children are so costly – see those “other reasons” mentioned above.”)
Certainly male humans compete with non-genetic signals (or at least not immediately genetic ones) such as health, wealth, status, clothes, style, conversation, reliability, commitment etc and females compete with several of those plus non-skankiness etc. But you seriously imagine they’re not competing with genetic cues – health (again), good looks, skin quality, physique, voice, personality etc ?
Eugenics has a bad name because of those who proposed imposing it on other people. But we’ve been picking mates on genetic cues since we clambered out of the oceans.
Glad you've moved on from, "life is reproduction. Everything else is a hobby. For organisms that reproduce sexually, the “mattering” of sex follows directly."
Now then, we're on to species wide survival being the concern. Challenge met!
Now, lets get on with living and not creating artificial metrics for what a successful life entails.
Oh, and there's plenty of theories about how homosexuality is a supportive trait to in social group; that's all evopsych and I am not a fan but you should really read up on what you're talking about; it's clear to anyone who has a passing familiarity you're way out ahead of your skis.
The only other person I've seen espouse such a view was Epstein.
How you got this :
Now then, we’re on to species wide survival being the concern. Challenge met!
from my last comment is almost lathropian in its ditziness.
Just out of interest, what construction did you put on this ?
No, not for the good of the species – for the good of MY genes.
Your answer may help me to work out some of your comments on legal questions in future. I knew you weren't a textualist, but wow !
It sounds like you're going back and forth on whether you understand the utility of altruism. Because it turns out that what's selected for is more complicated than YOUR genes.
Of course, we don't really have a lot of selection pressure now so you're barking up the wrong tree about that as well.
Listen, you haven't solved life by reducing it to Darwinian dross. And you certainly have no standing to insist others adopt your solution.
It sounds like you’re going back and forth on whether you understand the utility of altruism.
Er, no. I'm being relentlessly, even tediously, consistent. Kin selection is a thing precisely because it selects kin. Kin being folk who, statistically, carry more of your genes than non kin.
Because it turns out that what’s selected for is more complicated than YOUR genes.
I'm trying to think of a sense in which this is not absurd, and all I can think of is the merely banal. Obviously because you don't share 100% of your genes with the kin who you decide to benefit, then the genes that are advantaged are your kin's not yours, to the extent that they differ. So, if you have genes ABCDEF and you kin has genes ABCXYZ, then only half of your genes are being benefitted by your "altruistic" kin favoring behavior.
If you choose to think that benefitting half your genes is not benefitting YOUR genes, then fine.
Statistics is a thing too, btw.
If the advantage is sufficiently high, then the non-100% nature of what will be passed along is sufficient to be worth it.
But we don't need to worry about maximizing whose genes get passed on; that's not what life is actually about. Life is about living in lots of ways other than pumping out babies. (And I say this as someone planning to have kids).
This is all nonsense, not how humans work, not how humans are supposed to work, not even how nonhuman animals work.
Relentless optimization is dystopian, and you also condemn those who are infertile as resource sucks who I guess we should liquidate or some such inhuman optimization nonsense.
Statistics is a thing too, btw.
Do some fucking homework you ignorant smugo. You strongly believe something that you very clearly haven't bothered to dip your toe into the scholarship for. It's incredible - you stake out a fringey view, are truly dickish about it, and don't bother to listen to what others in the area have said about it.
I guess who cares if you appear to be an ignorant jerk so long as you fertilize fertilize fertilize.
"Do some fucking homework you ignorant smugo."
FWIW, Lee Moore's biology sounds right to me. Not sure where you're coming from.
He is just ranting because he has little response out side of a string of ipse dixit.
He’s not talking biology, he’s talking evolutionary psychology. Which is a discipline I consider to be quackery (and which suggests some profoundly…heterodox moral-sexual-social systems compared to what we currently have).
But this is not new from those folks:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17146141/
If dude’s going to espouse such a strong version of this kind of take, he should perhaps read at least a bit on it so he can be have some interaction with what those paid to think about this are on about, and not fly by the seat of his pants.
He doesn't need to agree with the, but he should at least be in dialogue about him.
The dude is well aware of that kind of theory. But at best it offers the suggestion that directing your efforts at homosexual activity is unlikely to cost you reproductive chances if these are already very low - as they are if you are a low mate value male.
Male frogs in the mating season can form large frog balls in the centre of which is just one female. But the males in their desperation will copulate with other males. Sometimes there’s no female at all. This just speaks to evolution designing a mate if it moves psychology as good enough.
Anyway low mate value male homosexual behaviour on these theories presents as a response to environmental conditions - ie that you find yourself with low mate value.
That fits anecdotally with my own observation. I know a number of really weird looking not to mention otherwise weird - and not in a good way - gay males. But they’re all interested in females. It’s just that the interest is not reciprocated.
Still a hypothesis is one thing, evidence is another.
I think he’s ranting because as a good leftie, evolutionary psychology is “quackery” not biology. Lefties do not want to believe that evolution can affect what goes on in the human head. Below the neck, ok. In other species, ok. But not in the human head. It’s an emotional response because it stands in the way of schemes to remake the world.
That said, evolutionary psychology is a part of biology which is fuller of hypothesis than evidence.
Evolutionary psychology is not quackery for partisan reasons, it’s just made up shit. What’s going on in the human head? We have a discipline for that. It’s not this.
Evopsyche has no predictability to it nor experiments or anything phenomenological. It makes assumptions and then speculates based on those assumptions.
At best it’s a discipline of philosophy.
It among other things says dudes gotta adultery that’s how we’re built, man. Cause evolution.
Not that you'd know - you don't engage with the field, you just claim it.
Goodness, I had no idea that your emotional revulsion for evolutionary psychology was so firmly based in complete ignorance.
You seriously think they don't test their theories with experiments ?
Obviously - as I said - hypotheses are thicker on the ground than evidence. But it's an evidence free discipline ? Really ? Try cheater detection for an entry level question :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3547066/
Moreover, you have no answer to the logical point. Even if it were the case that we don't know, or even can't know, what the content of our evolved psychology is - it's simply impossible that the organ with which we do our thinking (consciously and unconsciously) has not evolved.
We can talk, chimps can't. How did that happen ?
I had you down as old enough to have already embarked on the kid thing, if you wanted to go that way. Are you willing to give us an age range ?
For most people having children is the centre of their life.
That doesn’t make it so for everybody and nobody is proposing that non conformers be brought into line.
Meet the Christian fundamentalist right.
"There was a Star Trek episode about how deeply fucked up your ideas are. And of course Logan’s Run."
Such fine resorts to authority that you conjure up. Stomping your feet loudly does not convince anyone.
Dude's talking moral systems. Fiction is a legit way to interrogate the implications of those systems.
You don't even bother to think about what I write, do you? Knee-jerk contradiction.
I'm not talking moral systems - or mostly not.
I'm just observing the obvious facts that :
(a) logically, reproductive failure is terminal. Not only do you die - which you're going to do anyway, but your children do not participate in the future.
(b) in practice, reproduction is what all living things pursue (unknowingly) above all else. And how could that not be with the natural selection algorithm relentlessly pruning reproductive failure ?
(c) humans are animals
True, humans are interesting animals with consciousness, not driven wholly by their inherited instincts. (Albeit driven much more by their inherited instincts than polite society wishes to accept.)
Obviously the reality that "life is reproduction" is the principle by which the rest of life lives, and that humans are animals, doesn't mean that you have to believe that it is good that that is the driving principle of living things. You are welcome to think it is terribly bad, or at least meh. You are welcome to select such morals as appeal to you.
To the extent that I am talking about moral systems, you may consider me as contesting the modern progressive conceit that babymaking is a poor use of a woman's time and energy. Contra Katy Perry's snark, "layin on the table" is a fine thing to do and a fine ambition for a young girl. And not even slightly contemptible compared to trying to become an atronaut. The tale is told to students that they should focus on a glittering career, because it will be the most important thing in their life.
But it won't. At least, it won't for 90% of them. Most people, including those with splendid careers regard their children as the centre of their lives.
As I say, I have nothing at all against hobbies. I have several myself.
'you may consider me as contesting the modern progressive conceit that babymaking is a poor use of a woman’s time and energy.'
That's what this shit always boils down to, in the end.
Lately, those holding LM's view are more and more comfortable stating it a little more more starkly:
babymaking is the only good use of a fertile woman's time and energy. Other uses are possible and I suppose we can't stop that, but they're all poor substitutes for babymaking.
(For recent examples, search on National Conservative Manifesto, and underage marriage+ripe, fertile age.)
Just for the avoidance of doubt, I have not the smallest objection to you and Nige declining to breed.
Logically? Life isn't logical - you're imposing an external system.
in practice, reproduction is what all living things pursue (unknowingly) above all else
Nope. Unsupported.
Lets start here - Evolution is *not* an optimizing process. It is a 'good enough' process. That leaves lots of room for other stuff to come in that isn't directly related to reproduction, just randomly.
Plus our brains have generalized processing power; so we don't know if it came about because of reproductive pressure (because evolution is a good enough system, so part of it is almost certainly random chance that didn't render us unsurviveable). Pretending that's a single dimensional goal-oriented thing is denying your own humanity.
Life isn’t logical – you’re imposing an external system.
Life is entirely logical to the relevant extent. Which is :
1. living organisms are mortal
2. new living organisms can only be made by current living organisms reproducing
3. thus without reproduction, all life must become extinct
Evolution is *not* an optimizing process. It is a ‘good enough’ process. That leaves lots of room for other stuff to come in that isn’t directly related to reproduction, just randomly.
Obviously. How does that upset the logic ?
Plus our brains have generalized processing power; so we don’t know if it came about because of reproductive pressure (because evolution is a good enough system, so part of it is almost certainly random chance that didn’t render us unsurviveable). Pretending that’s a single dimensional goal-oriented thing is denying your own humanity.
Pretending that our generalised processing power possessing brains will be around in 150 years time without some of us getting down to doing some reproducing is denying reality.
You seem to think that anyone who points out that there's more to life than having babies is against reproduction.
Not at all. There is more to my life than reproduction. I have hobbies.
But then, you can't be a babymaker.
You may need to brush up on the technicalities a bit.
Oh, you're pregnant? Congratulations?
Science, she asserts, defines sex as binary, consisting of characteristics that "build one of two forms of humans toward reproductive ends." Gender, on the other hand, is what our cultures do with our two physical forms, "the social constructions that are based on our sex," and "how we conceive of and express ourselves."
True, but "on the other hand' is misleading. Gender - understood as she describes - is not independent of biology. There is a large biological component in human cuture - it is not a blank slate on which we can write what we choose.
To take an obvious example, let us take that wicked ol' patriarchy, where a group of high status, powerful, males boss everybody else about and try to snag as much of the reproductive action that they can.
Why is this sort of effort ubiquitous in any human society ? Why does it also exist in chimp society and baboon society and sheep society and elephant seal society ? It's not because all these critturs have read up a lot of sociology on why patriarchy is fun for the patriarchs.
Oh, christ, do shut up.
Please, internet denizens: If you are reaching for the evopsych hammer to just-so your way to any argument, recognize that your argument is shit and requires more information, reasoning, and rigor.
So you managed to stay on that "I'm not gonna deny human biology" wagon for .... two minutes !
Longer than I was expecting, to be fair.
Sounds like you need to read Doriane's book, Lee! It's all about how "gender is a thing" and "I'm not going to deny human biology" can both be true. You'd love it!
I may well read it, though there are a number of books I've been planning to read for decades and haven't quite got round to it.
But even before I read the book, I can state with condfidence that I believe "gender" (as described in the Kirkus review) "is a thing", and that I am not a denier of human biology. So if the book were to lead me to think these two views were in contradiction, I'd be amazed.
You seem to think they're in contradiction since you accused Simon of contradicting himself by saying both.
I understood his remark as a denial that human culture is influenced by human biology.
"evopsych hammer" and "shit" were my clues. Along with the obvious emotional color of his remarks. The idea that humans are animals above the neck as well as below, obviously really annoys him.
Then you understood his remark incorrectly.
Here's a clue: if you're reading a lot into someone's remark, and what you read into it contradicts something they just said, then probably you're reading it wrong and you should at least ask for clarification before accusing the person of contradicting themselves.
Here’s another clue :
"Oh, christ, do shut up...... your argument is shit "
is a signal that it's ok to be frank.
No, what annoys me, you fucking twat, is sloppily inferring from cherry-picked, imprecisely-recalled empirical examples some kind of explanation for human social behavior that is also cherry-picked and imprecisely described.
"Patriarchy happens because men like to fuck" is just such a stupid account, it almost refutes itself.
"those on the left who want to erase sex and those on the right who want to erase gender nonconformity"
Isn't there some way that they can BOTH lose?
Why can't we recognize this for what it is -- the 50-year War Against Boys has finally reached its nadar and the entire thing has to self destruct for sanity to return.
Well the ones on the left aren't actually trying to erase sex and the ones on the right can only win by emulating the Nazis and wiping out people who don't conform to their ideas of sex and gender, so, in that sense, let's say yes they should both lose!
"sequence of portraits of exceptional human beings from legal pioneers like Myra Bradwell and Ketanji Brown Jackson ... to civil rights giants like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Pauli Murray."
Don't know what Myra Bradwell's politics were but the other 3 are leftists. I guess no republican or conservative can be an "exceptional human being".
How is Ketanji Brown Jackson a "legal pioneer" but Sandra Day O'Connor is apparently not?
You think there was a list of every legal pioneer?
What a stupid attempt to pick a fight.
The review implies those are the only bios included.
If so, then its the author's decision to include only one political side.
What side is O'Connor on? This is not a discussion of D's and R's.
"What side is O’Connor on? "
The side that the book does not seem to think exists. Non-leftists.
The review implies those are the only bios included.
No it doesn’t! It says “a sequence of portraits… like Ketanji Brown Jackson…”
Do you do English good? That “like” implies that the sequence of portraits includes additional portraits like the ones mentioned, very likely including good ole Sandra Day. Probably the reviewer’s audience leans left so they picked appropriate examples.
Like Sarcastr0 said, jeez you’re desperate to find something to partisanly grieve about.
"like'
the proper construction is "such as"
So is “like,” with the tie-breaking advantage of brevity.
(Alas, something of which I’m rarely guilty. But I try.)
'I guess no republican or conservative can be an “exceptional human being”.'
Of course they can, but then they wouldn't be republican or conservative.
denying biological sex
I think this book would more accurately be called On Sex and Snowmen.
Who’s denying biological sex? Certainly not trans people, who have to deal with it very extensively. If pro-trans people “denied the biology of sex” they’d have to deny that trans men can get pregnant, which they don’t, to many of your all’s annoyance. Man, you guys can’t keep track of what your made-up grievances even are!
A lot of people deny sex. Even Scientific American, as it recently published an article saying that sex is not binary.
Sex isn't binary. XXY? Hermaphrodites? Get yourself together man. If you're going to lean on science, you need to get the science right. (Although we all know you're leaning on science in the same way that the Flat Earth Society leans on science: totally disingenuously.)
No.
Sex is very definitely binary. There's male and there' s female. That's all folks*.
You are confusing sex determination mechanisms (eg genes, karotypes etc) with sexes. There are plenty of the former and only two of the latter.
And with "hermaphrodites !" you are confusing the binariness of the sexes, with the binariness of sexually reproducing organisms.
Humans - like the vast majority of animals - are gonochoric. But you don't have to be gonochoric to be a fully functional sexually reproducing animal.
Thus :
Sexes - exactly and digitally two
Sex types of organisms - up to four (ie male, female, both, neither)
Methods of sex determination - lots
*note during the evolution of anisogamy from isogamy - which has happened several times - there is likely a period during which there are indeed more than two sexes - ie more than two gamete types that are capable of fusing and creating a diploid zygote. But intermediates between sperm and egg seem to get wiped out by runaway evolution to the extremes of size and motility. Thus the binary nature of sex is an observed phenomenon, not a logical necessity.
This distinction is stupid:
you are confusing the binariness of the sexes, with the binariness of sexually reproducing organisms.
Obviously when people like Roger, Scientific American, and myself talk about whether biological sex is binary, we're talking about organisms, not semantics. Nobody is saying that XXY is a third sex like... shemales. What a pathetic strawman.
So now you agree that sex is binary?
I agree that sex is binary in exactly the same way as Scientific American. Yes, there are two sexes in biology, which literally nobody denies, so if that's the point you're making, you're a retard. But people aren't always one sex or the other.
Scientific American denies that sex is binary.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/
Case in point.
Seriously retarded. Do you think he even read the article he linked to? It says exactly what I said.
I read it - it was mercifully short, thank you.
But it starts with a whopper of a strawman (and doesn't improve from there) :
There are those, politicians, pundits and even a few scientists, who maintain that whether our bodies make ova or sperm are all we need to know about sex.
Nobody suggests that that is all we need, or might want, to know "about" sex. There are vast swathes of sex related matters of interest we could explore. But whether you body makes (or strictly has a body plan designed to make) sperm or egg (or both) is all we need to know to definitively identify your sex (or sexes, if you are lucky enough to have two.)
All other things we might learn about you that are related to sex - like whether your willy works and how big it is, what karotype you have, whether you have any DSDs, whether you are pre menarche, whether you are attracted to humans of the same sex as you or the opposite sex, or both, or to both and ducks , and whether you feel as a matter of identity that you are really man, woman or moose - none of these are capable of altering what sex (or sexes) you have.
If you make sperm - but resemble Hedy Lamarr in all other respects, you're male. But I bet you'll get lots of dates with "heterosexual" guys. That lots of guys mistake you for a gal because you resemble Hedy Lamarr does not make you female. Your sperm make you male. If "Mr" Hedy wants children he will need to find a compliant female.
So the Scientific Americam article is just another page in the great, long, tedious, and politically inspired attempted redefinition of "sex" - to define it as a melange of anything you can think of that relates to sex - ie your karotype, your DSD (if you are unfortunate enough to have one), your sexual orientation, your secondary sexually differentiated characteristics such as hair, skin, personality, fat distribution, voice pitch, skeletal structure, your "gender" - these are all part of what goes to define your "sex."
Except it isn't. Your sex is conclusively defined by your gamete type.
Everything else in the list is a cause, or a consequence or a correlated association of your sex.
This not like putting the cart before the horse. It is like saying the cart is part of what the horse is.
Nobody suggests that that is all we need, or might want, to know “about” sex.
I feel like that's exactly what Roger here is suggesting. Don't you?
Not really :
This is the sum total of everything he's said in this little threadlet :
A lot of people deny sex. Even Scientific American, as it recently published an article saying that sex is not binary.
So now you agree that sex is binary?
Scientific American denies that sex is binary.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary…
which seems to be saying exactly what I'm saying.
Sex is binary.
He just has not then gone on to say - as I have - that those who say that sex is not binary are talking about something else. Not sex per se, but matters related to or adjacent to sex, and calling that amalgam "sex."
But who knows whether he is interested in the vast penumbra of sex-related topics, scientific, medical, social and cultural that whirl around - but are not the same thing as - "sex."
I am obviousy fascinated by it.
As to Roger - he will have to speak for himself. But nothing he has said so far indicates to me that he doubts that there are hours, even weeks, of fun to be had even after we have disposed of the idea that "sex" is not conclusively identified by gamete type.
He just has not then gone on to say – as I have – that those who say that sex is not binary are talking about something else.
Yes he did, when he referenced Scientific American, which you even just quoted!
Assuming he knows what’s in the Scientific American article he linked, which it’s only fair to assume, then he knows they’re talking about organisms and yet he's still claiming sex is binary in that context.
Lee is accurate. Sex is binary.
Since the 1970s, feminists and others have tried to distinguish sex and gender. Now some of those in trans lobby like the distinction, and some hate it. So it is no longer clear what anyone means by gender anymore.
But sex still has a well-defined meaning.
Well, Lee agrees with me that people’s sex isn’t binary.
I like how you guys are intentionally confusing and talking past each other and twisting yourselves into knots just to try to keep up your silly “sex is binary” talking point which you both are psychologically tied to even though you each mean something different by it. Fun! And intellectually dishonest, but that’s par for the course around here.
No I’m not agreeing with you that “people’s sex isn’t binary”
The sexes that people have are those binary two – male and female.
What isn’t binary is the selection of sexes that an organism can possess. Which is m, f, both, neither.
In humans both does not appear to be an option.
You continue to confuse a card with a hand. There are only 52 cards. But there are 311 million hands of 5 cards you can have from those cards.
All twisted up around a talking point, just like I said. And poor Roger.
Also a retarded talking point, as I mentioned. Literally nobody thinks there aren’t two sexes, so for that to be your core point is mind-bogglingly dumb. That’s also why it’s not what anybody means (except you) when they say “sex is(n’t) binary.”
Well there's twisted and there's twisted.
"Sex" and "binary" are both words with precise meanings, but which can be used in a slightly more relaxed fashion.
Thus if you absolutely insist that because 1 out of 100,000 humans does not possess exactly one of male or female sex, the word 'binary" cannot be used to describe the division of humans by sex, then you are IMHO in a weak position to whine about other people insisting that sex has a precise meaning which is different from the sex-possession categories into which humanity can be divided.
So you can have "sex is binary" in a precise sense. Or you can have "sex is binary" in an ever so slightly looser sense. In either sense, it's true.
But I don't think you can have "precision for thee but not for me."
Exactly. You and I are only separated by vocabulary. We agreed substantively like right away. The only reason we’re still talking is that I pointed out that Roger is using the terms differently than you are. You’re just both so invested in being able to say “sex is binary” that you don’t actually care that you mean different things by it.
So if you agree that”sex is binary” whether you use “sex” and “binary” in their strict sense, or in their slightly looser sense, why did you insist :
“Sex isn’t binary”
in your comment two down from your snowman comment ?
If we’re agreed that sex is binary whether we use the words in their strict or slightly looser senses, what do you mean by “sex isn’t binary” ?
Why the fuck is this so hard for people to understand, and why do they feel the need to destroy the people who aren't?
But people aren’t always one sex or the other.
I missed that line.
Yes it's true. People aren't always one sex or the other. From memory about 1 in 100,000 have neither of the two sexes. 0 in 100,000 have both sexes. And 99,999 in 100,000 have one sex or the other.
I'd be surprised if you've ever (knowingly) met a person who isn't one sex or the other.
Different story for earthworms of course.
That 1 out of 100,000 doesn't really have any bearing on the trans issues.
Obviously when people like Roger, Scientific American, and myself talk about whether biological sex is binary, we’re talking about organisms, not semantics. .
Well I'm glad we are in agreement that there are only two sexes, male and female.
But one reason to try to be clear about the difference between :
(a) {sexes},
(b) {which sexes an organism possesses}; and
(c) {the means by which sexual differentiation occurs}
is that people do seem to get confused about the differences.
People like you, for example :
Sex isn’t binary. XXY?
Nobody is saying that XXY is a third sex like… shemales. What a pathetic strawman
Because XXY is an example of a (c) - it's just one of the many karotypes that produce males in XY sex determining species. It's got literally nothing to do with the distinction between (a) sexes or (b) which sexes an organism possesses.
An XXY human has one of the only two sexes that exist, and he has only one of them - male. Ditto an XY human.
So XXY is a terrible illustration to pick to argue that sexes are other than binary. Because not only does his sex fit neatly into the binary of sexes (obviously); but he is relentlessly gonochorically male and only male.
So even if anyone was arguing that human organisms fit into a binary of necessarily possessing one and only one sex - he wouldn't be a counter-example of that either !
Athletics is by definition a PHYSICAL competition. As such biology is the primary determining factor and genetics is at it's core. When you watch a track and field competition, for example you are watching XX or XY competing. What they think of themselves is irrelevant. In sex segregated events that is the only thing that should matter.
I can claim to everyone I meet that I am a thoroughbred race horse, but no one sane is going to put a jockey on my back and take bets.
With one clarification to add the word "competitive" before "sports" I think this is obviously true.
Competitive sports have been dealing with this for a while in the form of atypical genotypes like XXY individuals. Afaik they use testosterone levels as the official classification in many cases. That seems like the right solution, assuming there's a way to account for past testosterone levels, not just current ones.
With one clarification to add the word “competitive” before “sports” I think this is obviously true.
Most "sports" are competitive.
Afaik they use testosterone levels as the official classification in many cases. That seems like the right solution, assuming there’s a way to account for past testosterone levels, not just current ones.
There isn't. Testosterone has significant effects, including on skeletal structure, starting in the first trimester of pregnancy. By the second trimester testosterone in boys is three times the level in girls. The excess testosterone in boys falls steadily (with a quick spike after birth) until it hits a low at about 6 or 7 years old. But even then it's still higher than in girls, but only by about 25% rather than 200%.
Then puberty kicks in and boys again go up to three times the girls level (though the girls level also rises in a sort of menarche to menopause bell curve.)
In short, cutting current testosterone levels is not a serious scheme for reducing male advantage. He's been building up huge advantages from the second trimester.
But - that doesn't mean that all males should be excluded from all female competition. For example males with CAIS have no androgen advantages - by definition. The hard bit is making sure the C is a C not a P.
There isn’t.
It sounds more like you're saying there is in 99.99% of cases, but maybe not all cases. But that's good enough, right? More than that number of people have the "wrong" sex on their birth certificate!
It sounds more like you’re saying there is in 99.99% of cases, but maybe not all cases.
I thought I was saying it the other way round – ie I mentioned one specific very rare example of when it would be possible to account for past testosterone levels, so long as you were sure you have a CAIS rather than a PAIS person. And that’s because theres a problem with testosterone take up.
But otherwise there’s no way to deal with the past testosterone advantages that boys get.
Though there are some sports eg equestrian where the gals don’t seem to have any disadvantage, and so testosterone doesn’t matter.
But otherwise there’s no way to deal with the past testosterone advantages that boys get.
You deal with it by presuming that if you grew up with balls, you grew up with testosterone.
Fair enough.
"Athletics is by definition a PHYSICAL competition. "
Which is why boxing and wrestling have weight classes.
And if you were to compare in shape female athletes to male athletes on a per pound basis, you will see a pretty fair competition as there is a pretty direct relationship between lean muscle mass and physical strength.
The problem is that the Title IX mandate for numerical equality, combined with less female interest in sports, has created a situation where overweight out-of-shape girls make the team when they never would have were they male. But once you adjust for that, the sex differences aren't as big as you might think. After all, no one is saying that female police officers aren't qualified....
"And if you were to compare in shape female athletes to male athletes on a per pound basis, you will see a pretty fair competition as there is a pretty direct relationship between lean muscle mass and physical strength."
That's not actually correct. It would be largely true if "per pound basis" means "per pound of lean body mass" and not "total body weight," since a higher percentage of male weight is muscle and a lower percentage is fat compared to women, even among elite athletes. Moreover, there are other sex differences relevant to athletics than strength, such as aerobic capacity and bone density.
It doesn't sound like this book gets into the language issue, which is a big miss for a book claiming to meditate the trans culture war.
I will: Dykes versus Trannies, Film at Eleven…. 🙂
This book appears to be a bunch of lame opinions, which she wants us to accept because she calls them "common sense". I doubt that there is anything interesting in it.
For once we agree.
"lame opinions"
She thinks that keeping boys out of girl's school sports is bad but is ok with keeping men out of Olympic or professional women's sports. Which is exactly backwards.
The closest 99% of people in school sports get to pro sports is buying a ticket. Its girls who need to be able to participate in sports in school without risking injury or having to sit on the bench because stronger or faster boys are involved.
If any of that happens, it won't be because of anyone trans. Far more likely to push more girls to stay out of sports if creepy scolds get to decide they have to check girls' genitals before every event.
"If any of that happens, it won’t be because of anyone trans. Far more likely to push more girls to stay out of sports if creepy scolds get to decide they have to check girls’ genitals before every event."
Have you ever, in your life, had an athletic physical?
Not to check if I was conforming to rigid conservatives notions of gender, no.
Wow. I don't care about pro sports, but I do want to preserve girls sports at the level of ordinary high schools getting some healthy exercise and competition. And she wants to wreck that? Okay, we shall see how she explains it.
You know what's been wrecking that all along? Social attitudes that discouraged girls from participating in sports, underfunding for girls sports, and the utter monster predators who were allowed to coach girls' sports. Trans people aren't even on the list.
How do trans girls wreck girls sports exactly?
Girls HS varsity sports is one of the great things America has done in the last 50 years!! Why would you want to mess with something so successful?? Now middle school sports that don’t really have limit on spots is a different matter because participating in sports is both mentally and physically healthy.
The appeal of girls sports is for girls to play with girls against other girls. When boys are allowed, it is not girls sports anymore.
Once puberty hits, biological girls cannot compete realistically with biological boys, regardless of whether one calls them "trans girls" or "biological boys." That's precisely why there are separate boys and girls divisions of sports. I assume you know this and there's some reason you're pretending not to.
Is there much actual physical competition in kids' sports? Like I said, I buy that argument for competitive sports. Kids sports seems more about sportsmanship, teamwork, individual excellence, and social rivalry than about actual physical competition. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.
Maybe you want to keep up the illusion for the kids that it's truly competitive, and you think honoring trans kids' gender identities would destroy the illusion? There could be an argument there, but it's more in the realm of trading off different kids' emotional well-being than it is about actually preserving competition in sports.
Yes there is much actual physical competition in kids sports.
You will find us Earthlings very peculiar as you continue your visit to our planet, Ambassador.
By the time the kids reach puberty (i.e., roughly middle school)? Yes, absolutely.
In fact, really before that. Based on my kids' experience, it was around 3rd grade that the various sports they participated in began to become competitive. (And it was no later than that they separated into boys and girls categories.)
I don't mean competitive as in the kids are competitive or that they're physically differentiated. I'm sure that's true. I mean competitive in that highlighting the physical differentiation is the main or even a significant point of the exercise.
I understood what you were asking about, and that's my answer: that's the age where it stopped being just about getting some exercise and hanging out with friends. (Not for everyone, of course; there are some levels of league which cater to that sensibility.)
To what end? This has the vibe of parents putting their young children into a cockfight for cashflow purposes.
3rd grade !
I won the parents day egg and spoon race at my kindergarten at age 5.
The prize was a box of crayons. Soft.
And yet when trans girls take part they completely fail to dominate, as if there are other factors at play.
That’s the correct position—protect female varsity and college sports and if a little boy that believes he is a girl then let him run on the middle school girls cross country team. Jogging is healthy and participating in sports is healthy and nobody is going to miss out on a college scholarship because a little boy participated in the girl middle school cross country meet.
A little girl participating in the girl middle school cross country meet might miss out on 1st prize (or even 3rd Prize) because the little boy won or came 3rd.
Dunno if we should care, so long as they both have lots of kids.
The priority in middle school is participating and exercising….in most sports middle school awards are secondary to leagues outside of school.
Which is greater: the harm to the cis girl who loses the prize or the harm to the trans girl who cannot compete in girl's sports?
The harm to the cis girl is much greater. The trans girl is really a boy, and is free to compete in boys sports.
False. Losing a middle school track ribbon to a trans girl isn't any worse than losing it to a cis girl.
Of course it’s worse - it’s not fair. We all hate being cheated.
And of course losing to a trans girl is more likely than losing to a girl girl. Because trans girls have advantages that girl girls lack.
You're one of those crazed parents screaming from the sidelines while the kids playing softball hug each other and help each other up when they fall over.
Exactly.
“This book is a clear guide for reasonable Americans on sex and gender”
Both of them?
Gender is more than Pole into Hole.
‘but equally that there is a middle ground where common sense reigns and we can support transgender people without denying the facts of human biology’
If they’re screaming about denying biology, they don’t care about biology, they just hate trans people, I’m not sure they’re amenable to common sense.
I see the blurbs, Kirkus excepted, all praise the book without actually mentioning trans people, but imply them as a terrble offstage threat. Oh well.
“How does sex matter in our everyday lives? And how should it be reflected in law and policy?”
It seems like an important question is whether distinctions based on self-identification ever have a place in law and policy. If the law is going to classify people, there needs to be a public purpose, and it’s hard to see a public purpose in classifying people based on how they see themselves.
So there can’t be a rational basis for gender-based classifications, to the extent that gender is based on self-identification.
Doesn't stop Republicans passing laws against them.
Yup. As I said, there should be laws against public institutions treating induvials differently based on "gender".
Too late. Once a bunch of right-wing freaks decide to target a vulnerable minority, it becomes necessary to protect them.
“those on the left who want to erase sex and those on the right who want to erase gender nonconformity”
I can't recall noteworthy examples of those on the right wanting to erase gender nonconformity. Please name some prominent examples for me.
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/31/trump-transgender-rights-lgbtq
So no noteworthy examples, eh?
Just the head of the Republican Party and candidate for President.
That is an example of someone who is against surgeries and other goofy sexual experiments on minors.
No, he's against kids and adults getitng access to the healthcare they need for the condition they have purely out of prejudice against people with that condition.
Here's something that has occurred to me recently in regards to transgender athletes:
There is an elaborate system installed in the vast majority of competitive sports to monitor and restrict or ban performance enhancing substances. There are important reasons for doing this. The substances included in ever-changing lists are mostly medications that were tested for safety for treating medical conditions. The risk of side effects for an otherwise healthy person is not going to be as well studied. Thus, no athlete should feel pressure to use such substances in order to remain competitive. They shouldn't have to risk unknown medical dangers like that. It isn't even just about ensuring "fair" competition. It is also about ensuring that athletes train and prepare in ways that are safe.
Now, sometimes, an athlete will have a medical condition that is best treated with a restricted substance. If that is the case, then there is a process for that:
In some situations, an athlete may have an illness or condition that requires the use of medication listed on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Prohibited List. USADA can grant a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) in these situations in compliance with the World Anti-Doping Agency International Standard for TUEs. The TUE application process is thorough and designed to balance the need to provide athletes access to critical medication while protecting the rights of clean athletes to compete on a level playing field.
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency website
I think something like that would need to be in place before allowing a trans-female athlete to compete in women's sports. It would need to be based on scientific research that the trans athlete would not have an advantage comparable in scale or greater to the advantage gained by an athlete using banned performance enhancing drugs.
Some athletes are just biologically gifted with the lung capacity, ability to build more of the right kinds of muscle fibers, height, build, or other factors that give them a greater chance at success in a sport than most of the other people that like playing that sport. That's luck of the genetic draw. Performance enhancing drugs allow people to exceed the benefits of these kinds of gifts. If the same could be said of trans women in a particular sport, then it becomes hard to justify allowing them to compete.
This isn't a position I come to instinctively. My emotional reaction is that transgender people deserve the same rights I have, just like anyone else. And I certainly don't think about or care whether a transgender man is in the same bathroom or locker room as me at any time. But I haven't seen a way around my conclusion. If someone else does, I'm happy to see it.
Trans athletes have already competed in the Olympics and one even won a gold medal. Do you know how those two individuals ended up in the division they competed in?? They simply presented their birth certificate to the officials and that made them eligible to compete in their respective divisions.
The thing is, that's just question begging; it depends how one frames the right in question. To wit:
1) You have the right to compete in the division of a sport that matches your biological sex; so does the transgender person.
vs.
2) You have the right to compete with people whose gender identity matches yours, but transgender people don't.
It’s already been decided—a trans athlete has won a gold medal! Guess what?? “Trans” can mean neither male nor female which is called nonbinary!! So progressives (Americans that support Hamas) took it so far that they made it impossible to go by anything other than sex at birth.
True, it does depend on how the question is framed. But remember that the way you wrote those questions was often the structure of the arguments made by people that opposed same sex marriage (which mirrored the arguments against interracial marriage).
1) You have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, so does a homosexual person.
vs.
2) You [heterosexual] have the right to marry someone you love romantically and have a sexual attraction towards, but a homosexual person does not.
A transgender woman that has medically transitioned cannot compete in men's sports effectively, I would think, even if the sport authority allowed it. Telling them that they can't compete in women's sports is telling them that they can't compete in elite, organized athletics at all. That is why I say that I am not coming to this position instinctively nor am I making this argument lightly.
What division does a nonbinary individual play in??
Good question. That is why "compete with people whose gender identity matches yours" is an impossibility. Gender identity is not real, and someone's chosen gender identity may not match anyone else's.
Just so you know—a nonbinary individual has won a gold medal in the Olympics.
Bruce Jenner even won a gold medal in the men's decathlon.
I’m not referring to him. Quinn won a gold medal in women’s soccer this past Olympics and nobody even cared.
Because they don't actually care about womens' sports except where it intesects with their culture war crap.
That's because Quinn is a biological woman. (Or, to use the transgender jargon, AFAB.) If Quinn were a biological man, people would indeed have cared.
The key is Quinn isn’t a woman. So progressives believe a non woman has already won a gold medal…how did Quinn qualify for the women’s division?? Because if you can answer that then you can develop rules for other trans athletes.
The key is Quinn isn’t a woman.
Except she is.
So progressives believe a non woman has already won a gold medal…
Good for them.
how did Quinn qualify for the women’s division??
By being a woman.
Because if you can answer that then you can develop rules for other trans athletes.
You compete in the competition for those of the same sex as you.
PS - there isn't any "spoiling the competition" problem with "trans men" ie actual women competing in events for men, because a "trans man" comes with no unfair advantage. So in principle there's no reason to have "mens" events rather than open events. If you're a woman and you're a good enough high jumper to compete with men, why not ?
But there is a problem in contact sports. The male competitors could do you serious damage - indeed they can do each other serious damage, but they're more likely to do a gal damage. And while what risks you take for you are your business, it's unreasonable to put the male competitors in the position of competing with someone they have a good chance of seriously damaging.
So open (formally known as mens) is fine for non contact sports. Not so fine for contact sports.
Caitlyn Jenner was also long since retired when she transitioned.
Gender identity is not real...
So, you don't think of yourself as a man, you just are? Masculinity is an illusion, in your view, apparently.
People that are cis-gendered (or not trans, if that is more acceptable to you) definitely have a sense of their gender. That is, they have a gender identity. The difference is that their feelings and sense of gender do not conflict with their biology or society's expectations of them based on their outward appearance.*
I have no way of relating to what it would feel like to not have the same gender identity as my biological sex. But unlike people like you that don't seem to accept that transgenderism exists, I don't take my inability to understand that feeling as evidence that it isn't real. I don't know why, scientifically, I feel like a man, just like my body is male. I don't know why, scientifically, I am attracted to females and not males. By the way, that also means that I can't really understand why most women are attracted to men, since I am not. For pure self interest, I'm just glad that most of them are. I definitely wouldn't want to narrow my dating pool to men that are attracted to other men. I have a hard enough time with almost half of the population matching my sexual preferences without having that added to it.
*(Now, I'm not talking about accepting society's gender role expectations. A woman in the 1950s that rejected the June Cleaver model of womanhood wasn't rejecting being a woman. I just mean that if a person's society looks at them and sees them as being a particular gender, they didn't see something different when looking in the mirror or feel different from that.)
I have no way of relating to what it would feel like to not have the same gender identity as my biological sex.
Try dressing up as a woman. I tried it once because I thought it would be a funny Halloween costume. I couldn’t do it. Made me super creeped out and even physically nauseous… totally unexpected. Maybe not everyone would have that response… I might not even now that I’m older… but there’s definitely something there. I can’t imagine feeling that way all the time.
People that are cis-gendered (or not trans, if that is more acceptable to you) definitely have a sense of their gender. That is, they have a gender identity. The difference is that their feelings and sense of gender do not conflict with their biology or society’s expectations of them based on their outward appearance.*
Nah. I have a sense that I am tapping out a reply to your comment. But this sense derives from the fact that that is in fact what I am doing. Likewise i know that i’m male because I’ve been in the shower with myself.
There might be some kind of “I’m a guy” module running in my brain. But it’s not that that convinces me that I’m a guy. It’s the fact that I’ve been sitting with my legs crossed to get the laptop a bit higher and I find it’s slightly uncomfortable. So I’ll have to stop now and cross my legs the other way. What society happens to be thinking contributes diddley squat to my conclusion.
There might be some kind of “I’m a guy” module running in my brain. But it’s not that that convinces me that I’m a guy.
All science and medicine suggests that yeah, that is what convinces you you’re a guy.
This is the same stupid argument as “being gay is a choice.” How do you even know what it means to “be a guy?” There aren’t masculinity instructions written on your dick. At least, mine didn’t come with any. So “how to be a guy” is wired in.
If you think you looked at your dick and then decided “well, I guess I’ll be a guy,” it follows that both “how to be a guy” and “how to be a girl” were there in your brain and you essentially consciously chose to double-click on guy.exe.
Do you really think that’s true, that you could’ve clicked girl.exe if you’d looked down and seen a vaj? That’s retarded.
How do you even know what it means to “be a guy?”
I’m an English language speaker. I know that guys have balls. OK if I lived in France, I’d be “un type”, but a rose by any other name.
I know I’m sitting on a sofa in a house. It’s cloudy outside. I know all these things because I have eyes and I can correlate what I see with my English speaking skills to report what I see.
If I see in an insect bite on my arm, do you think I need a special “insect bite detection” module in my brain to identify that fact ?
I’m an English language speaker. I know that guys have balls.
You are simply claiming that your belief in being a man, having a sense of masculinity is based entirely on your understanding of male vs. female genitalia. If you didn't know any of that, you simply wouldn't understand what a man was compared to a woman.
I don't believe that you are thinking at all about what we are saying.
Jason,
People make medical choices all the time that cause "disadvantages" in certain areas of life. If a person with 20 years of testosterone physical advantage make a trans choice. They can petition to compete in men's sport's in which they have the same chances in the genetic draw. Allowing their advantage against people who have been women their entire lives is simply unfair to that vast majority only to satisfy one person's vanity.
Sure, knowing the consequences of choices is certainly a factor in whether something can be "fair" or "unfair". I do object to the idea that people will transition just to "satisfy [their] vanity." I can't imagine many people going through the that kind of process and dealing with the judgement of people that don't like or accept them for the years it takes, as well as the physical consequences, just for their vanity. The people that get really weird, bizarre looking cosmetic surgery are pretty rare even in comparison to the numbers of trans people.
The goal of activists trying to get organized sports to be inclusive is for trans women to not have to sacrifice their aspirations to compete in a sport in order to be who they feel that they are. I sympathize with that goal.
Jason,
You misread what I wrote. Having transitioned to ‘F” the insistence to play women’s sports is just to satisfy their vanity, because outside they would ask to compete in the open “male” competition.
Trans-women can petition to compete in men's sports. The other is vanity and destructive of women's sports as we know them. You don't convince me regardless of how sincere that you are.
Having transitioned to ‘F” the insistence to play women’s sports is just to satisfy their vanity, because outside they would ask to compete in the open “male” competition.
I don't understand what you mean by "outside". And are you thinking that by "vanity" they want to compete against those that they have a chance of beating? Well, if that is it, then yeah. I'm sure that is part of what they are doing. And that is because for reasons that have nothing to do with their participation in a sport, they have transitioned to being a woman for as much as modern medicine can manage. Which puts them at a major disadvantage against men. Like I said. Telling them that they can't play women's sports is effectively telling them not to bother playing at highly competitive levels at all. We need to think about that carefully before ruling them out of competitive sports.
THIS IS REAL. I REPEAT, THIS IS REAL. The black mirror is real, the black mirror is really powerful, effective and 100% reliable. My name is Walter Brian, I want to thank Dada Magical for giving his black mirror to me. Since he gave me his black mirror, I became rich, successful, protected, informed and powerful. I was browsing through the internet one day when I saw multiple testimonies on how Dada Magical has helped so many people with his black mirror. I thought it was a joke at first but I gave it a try and contacted him. He sold the black mirror to me and told me how to use it and all that I need to do. I followed the instructions just as he told me and to my greatest surprise, it worked just as he told me. The black mirror is still working for me. The mirror also brings good luck, blessings and information. Contact Dada Magical now on his email; Dadablackmirrors@gmail.com and he will help you also with the black mirror just the same way he helped me. Thank you Great Dada Magical.