Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

[Eric the .5b]

Now imagine the same thing with the men of the Gryll -- again, each of you in your prime and after proper training, none of you are good enough to make the Olympics, but all of you are The Best at one thing and Pretty Good at other things compared to the other men here.

For a long, contrived hypothetical, this is a particularly unlikely bit.

And now, imagine we put the Gryllmen against the Gryllwomen ... none of us women will beat any of you men.

We don't really know. Maybe you turn out to be able to feed all the guys their teeth in beach volleyball or tennis; there's enough in this scenario that's pretty much completely made up that anything could happen.

And further, all the Grylliade guys and all the Grylliade women will get their asses beat in any given random sport by serious competitors, much less world-class competitors. It's not "Oh, Usain Bolt beat me 3 out out of 5 times", it's "Damn, I didn't have a chance."

[D.A. Ridgely]

It sounds to me, Jennifer, like you've got a much better chance of succeeding as a jockey than any of the guys on Grylliade.

[Jennifer]

It sounds to me, Jennifer, like you've got a much better chance of succeeding as a jockey than any of the guys on Grylliade.

Sitting on a horse is not a matter of speed, nor does it require unusual strength compared to most people. All else being equal, anyone small and lightweight will do better than someone larger and heavier -- me and those 110-pound military men I mentioned earlier would have equal chances at being a jockey, all else being equal -- but I still have no chance against them in wrestling or running or weightlifting or whatever.

[Jennifer]

And further, all the Grylliade guys and all the Grylliade women will get their asses beat in any given random sport by serious competitors, much less world-class competitors. It's not "Oh, Usain Bolt beat me 3 out out of 5 times", it's "Damn, I didn't have a chance."

I know -- in my hypothetical, remember, I did say that even in top condition, NONE of us here are good enough to become professional athletes or make the Olympics. But we can be good enough to just give each other some good challenges -- provided the women and men compete separately in certain events.

[Jennifer]

We don't really know. Maybe you turn out to be able to feed all the guys their teeth in beach volleyball or tennis; there's enough in this scenario that's pretty much completely made up that anything could happen.

Note also, I did not say "Women can't beat men in ANY athletic contests." But there are certain athletic contests or types thereof for which that is indeed the case.

[D.A. Ridgely]

It sounds to me, Jennifer, like you've got a much better chance of succeeding as a jockey than any of the guys on Grylliade.

Sitting on a horse is not a matter of speed, nor does it require unusual strength compared to most people. All else being equal, anyone small and lightweight will do better than someone larger and heavier -- me and those 110-pound military men I mentioned earlier would have equal chances at being a jockey, all else being equal -- but I still have no chance against them in wrestling or running or weightlifting or whatever.

If you think jockeys aren't athletes, you don't know much about thoroughbred racing.

[Jennifer]

It sounds to me, Jennifer, like you've got a much better chance of succeeding as a jockey than any of the guys on Grylliade.

Sitting on a horse is not a matter of speed, nor does it require unusual strength compared to most people. All else being equal, anyone small and lightweight will do better than someone larger and heavier -- me and those 110-pound military men I mentioned earlier would have equal chances at being a jockey, all else being equal -- but I still have no chance against them in wrestling or running or weightlifting or whatever.

If you think jockeys aren't athletes, you don't know much about thoroughbred racing.

I admit, I don't. If it turns out successful jockeying does indeed require something where actual physical strength or personal speed gives one an innate advantage, then women likely would be at a disadvantage compared to men, after all.

I don't know if you are for or against the notion that sexual dimorphism in humans is real enough that women in certain areas do have inherent disadvantages relative to men, to the point where "equal competition" between the two sexes (not genders) in those areas becomes absurd.

[D.A. Ridgely]

It sounds to me, Jennifer, like you've got a much better chance of succeeding as a jockey than any of the guys on Grylliade.

Sitting on a horse is not a matter of speed, nor does it require unusual strength compared to most people. All else being equal, anyone small and lightweight will do better than someone larger and heavier -- me and those 110-pound military men I mentioned earlier would have equal chances at being a jockey, all else being equal -- but I still have no chance against them in wrestling or running or weightlifting or whatever.

If you think jockeys aren't athletes, you don't know much about thoroughbred racing.

I admit, I don't. If it turns out successful jockeying does indeed require something where actual physical strength or personal speed gives one an innate advantage, then women likely would be at a disadvantage compared to men, after all.

I don't know if you are for or against the notion that sexual dimorphism in humans is real enough that women in certain areas do have inherent disadvantages relative to men, to the point where "equal competition" between the two sexes (not genders) in those areas becomes absurd.

Actually, it's a sport where pound-for-pound women may have an advantage over men.

Obviously, ceteris paribus, men and women of the same age, weight, height, etc. are still going to be physiologically dissimilar and, sure, that's going to mean, ceteris paribus, that the women will be at a disadvantage for most athletic competitions, most if not all of which were originally designed by men for men to compete in. But there are studies that show that women have advantages in agility, pain tolerance, reflexes and a few other factors that, for example, may make them better suited physically to be drivers, jockeys and even fighter pilots.

But other factors never really are equal, so I'm not sure what point you're making. Billy Jean King made quick work of Bobby Riggs in their celebrated tennis match in 1973. Maybe Riggs would have won as a younger man but, as I said, other factors are never really equal. Athletic women will beat nonathletic men, big strong women will beat small weak men, etc. and there are enough of both sorts that for purposes of many sports consideration of what is average for men or average for women is irrelevant. Professional athletes are all freaks of nature, anyway, so I don't know what lessons we can learn from them, either.

[Eric the .5b]

We don't really know. Maybe you turn out to be able to feed all the guys their teeth in beach volleyball or tennis; there's enough in this scenario that's pretty much completely made up that anything could happen.

Note also, I did not say "Women can't beat men in ANY athletic contests." But there are certain athletic contests or types thereof for which that is indeed the case.

So, in other words, the only possible outcomes that matter for this hypothetical are the ones that support your point of "sexual dimorphism advantages men athletically"...which I'm not even at any point arguing against.

All I'm pointing out is that there's a Hell of a lot of other situations where, "No, you just aren't gonna win" come up in sports, whether competitive or friendly, so long as everyone's actually trying. Those situations are completely accepted in sports. The good Christian girls involved in this lawsuit not only accepted that, they banked on their athletic ability being good enough so that they could swing scholarships which the vast majority of their competitors would have no more realistic hope of getting than I would have had to successfully guard Shaquille O'Neal back in the 90s, when I played basketball.

So, no, I don't see any huge injustice that they got pitted against a couple of transgirls, not even if those girls would have beaten them ten times out of ten. Take the transgirls out, and the good Christian girls, if they really were "denied" top places, would have beaten most of the field ten times out of ten.

[Jennifer]

All I'm pointing out is that there's a Hell of a lot of other situations where, "No, you just aren't gonna win" come up in sports, whether competitive or friendly, so long as everyone's actually trying. Those situations are completely accepted in sports.

Provided the playing field is generally accepted to be fair (the metaphorical "level playing field"). Women v. men does not apply in many cases.

So, no, I don't see any huge injustice that they got pitted against a couple of transgirls, not even if those girls would have beaten them ten times out of ten. Take the transgirls out, and the good Christian girls, if they really were "denied" top places, would have beaten most of the field ten times out of ten.

Again, this situation is far more important than "Boo hoo, a couple high school girls who might not be very likeable anyway don't get to be sport stars." It's the required denial of freaking reality that concerns me. You needn't be a botany fan to be very disturbed by Lysenkoism.

[Jennifer]

It sounds to me, Jennifer, like you've got a much better chance of succeeding as a jockey than any of the guys on Grylliade.

Sitting on a horse is not a matter of speed, nor does it require unusual strength compared to most people. All else being equal, anyone small and lightweight will do better than someone larger and heavier -- me and those 110-pound military men I mentioned earlier would have equal chances at being a jockey, all else being equal -- but I still have no chance against them in wrestling or running or weightlifting or whatever.

If you think jockeys aren't athletes, you don't know much about thoroughbred racing.

I admit, I don't. If it turns out successful jockeying does indeed require something where actual physical strength or personal speed gives one an innate advantage, then women likely would be at a disadvantage compared to men, after all.

I don't know if you are for or against the notion that sexual dimorphism in humans is real enough that women in certain areas do have inherent disadvantages relative to men, to the point where "equal competition" between the two sexes (not genders) in those areas becomes absurd.

Actually, it's a sport where pound-for-pound women may have an advantage over men.

In that case, I'm guessing the advantage is either in overall shortness (if that Audie Murphy statistic is true, he was my same weight despite being four inches taller -- and I'm going to guess he did not look "scrawny" compared to me), or possibly because IIRC women have lower centers of gravity -- that "stand up over the chair while bent at the waist thing" that pretty much any normal-size, non-pregnant woman can do, but no man can, not because of weakness but because the man's center of gravity is above the bend of his waist, when he's in that position. If "low center of gravity" is indeed the deciding variable, then I wouldn't be opposed to the idea that men and women jockeys compete separately (insofar as I care about jockeys or horse racing at all, which I mainly don't).

[Eric the .5b]

All I'm pointing out is that there's a Hell of a lot of other situations where, "No, you just aren't gonna win" come up in sports, whether competitive or friendly, so long as everyone's actually trying. Those situations are completely accepted in sports.

Provided the playing field is generally accepted to be fair (the metaphorical "level playing field"). Women v. men does not apply in many cases.

You're asserting that transgirls vs. cisgirls is not "fair" because, absent hormone treatments, at least one competitor has little or no real chance to win. But many competitions are generally—and commonly—considered "fair" even though one or more competitors in them have no real chance to win. So, why/how is this situation any different?

Again, this situation is far more important than "Boo hoo, a couple high school girls who might not be very likeable anyway don't get to be sport stars." It's the required denial of freaking reality that concerns me. You needn't be a botany fan to be very disturbed by Lysenkoism.

I'm not denying any reality of sexual dimorphism. I'm disagreeing with you on what should be done based on those facts.

As for the ACLU, let me know when you find any political movement or advocacy where someone isn't denying reality at some point. I haven't found one yet, myself.

[Jennifer]

All I'm pointing out is that there's a Hell of a lot of other situations where, "No, you just aren't gonna win" come up in sports, whether competitive or friendly, so long as everyone's actually trying. Those situations are completely accepted in sports.

Provided the playing field is generally accepted to be fair (the metaphorical "level playing field"). Women v. men does not apply in many cases.

You're asserting that transgirls vs. cisgirls is not "fair" because, absent hormone treatments, at least one competitor has little or no real chance to win. But many competitions are generally—and commonly—considered "fair" even though one or more competitors in them have no real chance to win. So, why/how is this situation any different?

It's different because of the Venn diagram differential I mentioned in a post upthread:

As I understand it -- talking specifically about normal non-outlier biological males and females -- the testosterone and muscle-fiber-density differentials are not in-general matters like height, but absolutes. Meaning: it's true that "Men in general are taller than women in general," but there are plenty of individuals on both sides who defy this trend -- there are lots of individual normal men (as opposed to men suffering some form of dwarfism) who are shorter than lots of individual normal women, and lots of normal women (as opposed to women with some form of giantism) who are taller than various individual men. So if you drew a Venn diagram, one circle labeled "Height of adult men who are not afflicted with any recognized medical disorders resulting in people's height being outside the norm for our species" and another circle labeled thus for adult women, those two circles would overlap somewhat.

But if you drew a Venn diagram regarding testosterone levels for normal men and women, or muscle-fiber density for same, those two circles wouldn't overlap at all. They wouldn't even touch. Any normal individual adult male without medical alteration WILL have higher rates that any normal individual adult woman.

Again, this situation is far more important than "Boo hoo, a couple high school girls who might not be very likeable anyway don't get to be sport stars." It's the required denial of freaking reality that concerns me. You needn't be a botany fan to be very disturbed by Lysenkoism.

I'm not denying any reality of sexual dimorphism. I'm disagreeing with you on what should be done based on those facts.

As for the ACLU, let me know when you find any political movement or advocacy where someone isn't denying reality at some point. I haven't found one yet, myself.

I know of many political ideologies or advocacies requiring implicit or explicit denial of reality -- I've explicitly called out Republicans especially for it, on issues ranging from climate change and evolution, and everyone here loathes anti-vaxxers on all sides of the political spectrum -- but the thing is, until now, none of those reality-denying groups were ones whose goals I actually support. And, although you say you're not denying dimorphism, only what should be done about it -- many people such as my pious-dipshit friend and now apparently some folks at the ACLU too go much further, either denying dimorphism outright or (with the p-d friend plus many others on that Facebook thread) insisting it is merely a "distraction" from the issue of trans rights. And I am incredibly disturbed by the implications of "In order to completely support LGBT equality, sometimes you must agree cisgirls need to compete in certain athletic contests against opponents occupying completely different circles on the Venn diagram, and it's nothing legitimate for them to complain about."

Remember my racism analogy upthread, wherein I'm told my Deep South sunburn concerns are not real physical issues, but racist bullshit I must abandon if I am to be a good and decent and non-racist person? I meant it when I said even that wouldn't make me go so far as to throw my lot in with the alt-righters ... but I'd worry about some equally pale person significantly younger than me, still finding her way in the world and trying to figure things out, and the non-racist people are giving her massive shit for something which is 100 percent not her fault while the racists are the only ones saying "For fuck's sake, Jennifer, your burn-prone skin is not your imagination, nor are you lying when you say 'I need coverup clothes and sunblock to out during the day without physical damage and pain,' and you are NOT 'promoting white supremacist beauty standards' in trying to keep your skin as pale as possible, especially in summertime..."

[JasonL]

The argument that an agreed upon framework of fairness in competition doesn’t matter because some people are going to win and others aren’t so fuck it strikes me as bizarre. Competition among any groups with definitions other than “literally everyone” would be subject to that critique. 18 year olds competing with 12 year olds? Who cares some of those kids were never going to win anyway.

[D.A. Ridgely]

The argument that an agreed upon framework of fairness in competition doesn’t matter because some people are going to win and others aren’t so fuck it strikes me as bizarre. Competition among any groups with definitions other than “literally everyone” would be subject to that critique. 18 year olds competing with 12 year olds? Who cares some of those kids were never going to win anyway.

It doesn't matter (at least to me) because it's ultimately arbitrary and sports don't matter and shouldn't be taken seriously. Who cares who can run fastest if there isn't a bear behind us?

[Warren]

The argument that an agreed upon framework of fairness in competition doesn’t matter because some people are going to win and others aren’t so fuck it strikes me as bizarre. Competition among any groups with definitions other than “literally everyone” would be subject to that critique. 18 year olds competing with 12 year olds? Who cares some of those kids were never going to win anyway.

It doesn't matter (at least to me) because it's ultimately arbitrary and sports don't matter and shouldn't be taken seriously. Who cares who can run fastest if there isn't a bear behind us?

There might be a bottle in front of us.

[JasonL]

If it doesn’t matter then participation doesn’t matter either.

[D.A. Ridgely]

If it doesn’t matter then participation doesn’t matter either.

That's right, it doesn't. It can be fun to watch or, if you're any good at it, participate in, but it still doesn't matter.

[thoreau]

If you don't give a shit about sports then certainly none of this matters. If one does care about sports, is there an argument for some form of sex and/or gender segregation that (1) mostly achieves the goals of sex segregation and also (2) respects the dignity of transgender people?

As long as sports are a primarily recreational pursuit the occasional transgender woman on the playing field isn't a big deal--most transwomen are no more or less athletic than anyone else, and there are plenty of fitness-oriented ciswomen who could outperform many (not all) transwomen sports hobbyists. A neighborhood league for aging and barely (if at all) fit suburbanites shouldn't get too bent out of shape over, well, any aspect of competition.

When we go from casual hobbyists to serious competition, though, the winnowing effects of competition and tournament structures mean that if transwomen have substantial advantages that make the best transwomen better than the best ciswomen, then the top of the leagues might (it's a hypothesis subject to empirical study at present, as transgender people gain more social acceptance) be dominated by transwomen, even if transwomen are rare overall.

Does that matter? Well, one purpose of competitive sports is simply to set records of human achievement. We keep separate men's and women's records for a reason. I don't care much who the biggest fish in a small pond is, but if we're trying to ask the question "What is the best that a woman can do when she pushes herself to the utmost limits?" then something seems wrong about not at least having an asterisk next to a record set by a woman who grew up with a functioning Y chromosome. Yeah, all of the other women winners are probably biologically unusual in some regard, but the rationale for sex segregation is that sex is a trait that we don't just hand-wave away.

(I'll gladly back down on that point if exercise physiologists and whatnot show that growing up with a functioning Y chromosome has little or no effect on athletic performance. Or, at least, show that once hormone therapy has made its mark one's developmental history has no more effect than Michael Phelps' unusual arm span and myriad Olympians' unusual metabolism and whatnot.)

There are two possible ways to adjudicate this in favor of letting transwomen compete. One is for exercise physiologists to show that my premises are wrong. I'm not an expert on this, maybe hormone therapy does nullify those advantages. If so, great. The other way is to conclude that respecting transwomen's identities is more important than the considerations that led to sex segregation in sports. And that comes down to what the point of fairness is here. If it's to deal with the fact that some people will never win, well, that's always the case. If it's about a pursuit that asks the question "What is the best that this biologically-defined segment of humanity can accomplish?" then I think our answer to that question has to be pursued through dignified competition, and since it's all premised in biology I don't think we can ignore biology.

[thoreau]

For myself, while I'll never be a competitive athlete (particularly not in any competition designated for women), I have nieces and students who compete. I donate to their fundraisers from time to time. I cheer for them from time to time. Am I supporting them in an endeavor that is undermining human dignity or celebrating the quest for the highest possible human achievement?

[D.A. Ridgely]

For myself, while I'll never be a competitive athlete (particularly not in any competition designated for women), I have nieces and students who compete. I donate to their fundraisers from time to time. I cheer for them from time to time. Am I supporting them in an endeavor that is undermining human dignity or celebrating the quest for the highest possible human achievement?

Neither, because whatever the highest possible human achievement might be, it has little to nothing to do with who wins a game or who runs the fastest or scores the most points or whatever and whatever human dignity may be it has even less to do with athletics.

Because it doesn't matter, teams and leagues and neighborhood pickup games should be able to make whatever rules up they want, keep score any way they want, give out trophies, etc. Who cares if there's cheating? Who cares what drugs one takes and the other doesn't? Who cares what sex or gender or whatever any of the members are?

I like sports. (Yeah, I know, it doesn't sound like it.) I like to root for some pro football and baseball teams and some college sports teams. Athletic competition can be thrilling to watch. Maybe for many people it also builds character. At least I wouldn't go so far as to say that's not possible. So I care about who wins and who loses, etc. within the confines of the sports and games I've decided to enjoy as a fan, but the fact that I care doesn't matter because, at bottom, what I care about in this particular case doesn't matter. It's just entertainment.

[thoreau]

If it's JUST entertainment then the value of keeping records of "fair" competition is zero, so as long as inclusion has ANY non-zero value then inclusion wins. If it's JUST entertainment then my nieces and students are in the wrong if they compete in leagues that exclude transgender women. In fact, if the fairness concerns underlying sex segregation are irrelevant because entertainment is not about fairness, then hormone levels should also be irrelevant. Anyone who self-IDs as a woman should be let onto the women's team regardless of hormone levels, how far along their transition is, etc.

That's fine if you truly, absolutely, do not give any shit whatsoever.

For those who attach some value to fair competition and records, we have something to weigh against the value of inclusion. Depending on both the facts (e.g. does hormone therapy sufficiently mitigate the effects of growing up with a functioning Y chromosome?) and one's value preferences (is inclusion so important that it outweighs the argument for sex-segregated records) this could go either way. But the ethical arguments proffered for letting transwomen compete against women are substantial enough that there are stakes for getting this wrong.

[Warren]

So tell us Oh Wise Ancient One DAR, What the fuck does matter?

[D.A. Ridgely]

If it's JUST entertainment then the value of keeping records of "fair" competition is zero, so as long as inclusion has ANY non-zero value then inclusion wins. If it's JUST entertainment then my nieces and students are in the wrong if they compete in leagues that exclude transgender women. In fact, if the fairness concerns underlying sex segregation are irrelevant because entertainment is not about fairness, then hormone levels should also be irrelevant. Anyone who self-IDs as a woman should be let onto the women's team regardless of hormone levels, how far along their transition is, etc.

That's fine if you truly, absolutely, do not give any shit whatsoever.

For those who attach some value to fair competition and records, we have something to weigh against the value of inclusion. Depending on both the facts (e.g. does hormone therapy sufficiently mitigate the effects of growing up with a functioning Y chromosome?) and one's value preferences (is inclusion so important that it outweighs the argument for sex-segregated records) this could go either way. But the ethical arguments proffered for letting transwomen compete against women are substantial enough that there are stakes for getting this wrong.

No, from the fact that it doesn't matter, it doesn't follow that people may not value it, it only follows that their valuing it doesn't matter. Have sports leagues that exclude transsexuals or have them that don't. The stakes either way are zero. Yes, sure, people care and so you're taking something away from someone who cares or you're not letting someone who cares have something, but what they care about still doesn't really matter. People might care about freckle competitions and care whether someone came up with a freckle growth drug and should the person with enhanced freckles be permitted to compete? What about the guy with acne? Shouldn't the record books at least put an asterisk next to the drug user's name? Sure. Why not. Or don't. Some people will win that dispute and some will lose. Some will be encouraged to compete in the freckles contests and some will be discouraged and on and on, but it's still just a freckle contest and the fact that they care passionately about it doesn't require me or you or anyone else to care, nor should we because who has the most freckles doesn't matter.

[thoreau]

Are the stakes zero? In general, people attach non-zero value to enjoying equal rights to participation in recreation.

Let's consider an alternative scenario: A league that excludes non-white people, as opposed to transgender people. My goal here is not to argue whether discrimination against transgender people is or isn't exactly equivalent to racial discrimination (that's very much a matter of controversy, one that is ancillary to my immediate point) but to argue that discrimination in sports can matter even if sports in and of themselves have dubious significance.

Anyway, if a friend asked me to donate to their kid's all-white sports league, I would decline. Just about all decent people would (assuming they knew of the policy, it wasn't just "Hey, my kid's in this league, wanna donate?" with no mention of the policy). In fact, most people would start re-evaluating whether they want to remain friends with that parent. Regardless of whether one did or didn't give a shit about sports, that league is just not something that most people would want to support. Conversely, if the league wasn't discriminatory, even people who don't care about sports might donate because they care about their friend's kid and want to support their endeavors.

Now, at this point there are two obvious side-tracks that we could take: One is that we could invoke Libertarianism 101 and say that the league ought to enjoy a free association right. But that gets us nowhere, because the Libertarianism 101 argument is that the government shouldn't coerce the league to open up, not that everyone else should think this league is great. Besides, Libertarianism 101 also says that we have a free association right to decide not to support that league if we have a value system that opposes what they're doing. The other thing we could do (which hasn't happened yet, but often does happen here) is turn this into a bunch of "is" statements about civil rights law as it currently exists. But my hypothetical assumes a world where we have to make a choice.

So, exclusionary practices in sports leagues can be subjected to moral critiques even by people who don't like sports, because they might wish to support their friend's kid's activities out of personal fondness, and then they have to weigh their desire to support the kid against their moral judgment of the policy.

Leagues that exclude transgender people do exist and are the subjects of critiques. Those of us who were going to support friends or relatives or students or whoever in their leagues need to decide whether or not we approve of these exclusions, and if we disapprove strongly enough to outweigh our desire to support our friends or relatives in their endeavors.

If the neighborhood recreational league excludes transgender people, I'm inclined to say that's a bad thing. If a more serious competitive women's league excludes transgender people, well, the advocates for such exclusions have their own fairness argument, involving sexual dimorphism and the purpose of sex segregation in elite competition (as opposed to casual fun). These things need to be weighed.

Unless you not only don't care about sports but also don't care about supporting the recreational activities of friends and family. Which is, of course, valid, but it's not an argument that's going to really help anyone else resolve the dilemmas if they don't share your preferences. Once somebody answers "Oh, come on, who cares?" with "I do, for reasons that are good enough for me" then there's not much point in continuing with "It doesn't matter."