44

40 comments

[–] ProxyMusic 27 points Edited

Sullivan says:

You could include trans women in sports where there is no serious male advantage, where skill is much more important than strength and speed. And one way to include trans women in women’s events without penalizing women would be simply to exclude trans women from medals, or records, in the most elite events. In most schools, most of the time, no problem. It’s not a perfect solution, because there is none.

No thank you, Andrew Sullivan. Women and girls don't want guys in our sports - or our locker rooms, loos, showers and other spaces, either.

Girls and women in all levels of sport should be able to have a fair shot at winning and placing - these shouldn't be reserved solely for "the most elite events" and levels no matter what Martina and Hogshead-Makar say. Fuck their elitism and willingness to throw the majority of girls and women under the bus in this regard.

Also, funny Sullivan doesn't name any of the "sports where there is no serious male advantage, where skill is much more important than strength and speed," LOL. Even in archery males have big advantages because of things like larger stature, different skeleton and especially upper body shape, larger hands, longer arms, slower heart rate, much larger lungs and hearts and therefore greater ability to hold their breath, no large breasts to get in the way or bruise, no premenstrual breast tenderness/pain, no chance of pregnancy, no lactation...

Also, in one of the few sports where males do not have an advantage - ensemble water ballet/synchronized swimming - having to let a male in would be a big drag. Males can't stay flat on their backs on the surface of pool water with their bodies on an even plane through sculling because they don't have the extra adipose layer and because their center of gravity is totally different. A male in ensemble water ballet would wreck it.

I don't think Sullivan has a clue about the thousands of anatomical and physiological differences that put females and males on such different planes physically as far as sports go. He probably doesn't even realize that sports were all invented and designed to showcase and highlight the activities that male bodies specifically are tailor-made to be good at.

As I wrote in my post about the 4x100m mixed relay, the only mixed swimming event I consider fair, one of the strategies teams consider when choosing the order of their swimmers is the effect of drag in the water by males swimming against women. Drag is the whole reason why the fastest qualifying swimmers get to swim in lane 4 or 5.

Even if he was not allowed a medal, Thomas's whole physical presence in the pool affects all other swimmers. That's not even including the non-physical impacts of his presence.

[–] BlackCirce 🔮🐖🐖🐖 14 points

Thank you for this. I’m glad Andrew Sullivan is stating obvious since other Dems won’t, but ultimately he’s a gay man advocating for the trans status quo for the usual reasons.

Yes. I’m glad he’s jumping on the “glaringly obvious” bandwagon, but his repeated cris-de-coeur for trans rights - which are what, exactly? - and lamentations at their distress is missing the point.

[–] BlackCirce 🔮🐖🐖🐖 5 points

Trans rights for these folx means transmedicalism: the right for adults with diagnosed gender dysphoria to receive medical treatments to disguise themselves as the opposite sex, and then the legal accoutrement (name changes on documents and “recognition” certificates from the government) to hide their identities. Socially this means everyone is expected to persist in the delusion that the person is the opposite sex through calling them a false name and using incorrect third person pronouns and sex markers. He hints at this by saying “the other side” (that’s us) “misgenders” (correctly sexes) trans people. Even if you have a de jure right to acknowledge the correct sex, in practice you will be socially pressured to go along.

As Proxy and a few others here are saying, feminists need to realize that “no men in women’s spaces ever” is not even an option on the table right now. Men are coming to the table with their reasonable and rational approaches saying the worst trans males (autogynephiles who have not made a concerted effort to transition and have a criminal record) should not be allowed in women’s provisions. Sullivan is hedging here saying men can participate in women’s sports as long as they don’t get the trophies. Similar suggestions will be made for women’s prisons if they haven’t already.

I completely agree with you. Girls and women should have our own spaces.

Sorry but any and every aspect of a man competing w women and girls in sports for women and girls is wrong

I’m all about compromise, but women’s sports are for women

Handicapping TIMs or preventing TIMS from getting medals in the upper levels is still not fair.

Having TIMs race w women but their times are against other TIMS, still not fair

Why can’t a girl or woman feel the feeling of actually being first? Be the one to break the tape at the end of the race? Why do lower level female athletes not get to have a high school trophy? Most of us who’ve played sports have some little ribbon or trophy. Few of us will ever get Olympic medals. We can’t win awards until we are elite athletes? Men get men’s awards and most of ours?

Exactly - it's not just about the record or the medal. It's the feeling of exhilaration when you break the tape, the public watching the winner cross first, the moment of glory. If men get to keep that advantage and women lose theirs, then we are discriminating on the basis of sex in sports.

it's not just about the record or the medal. It's the feeling of exhilaration when you break the tape, the public watching the winner cross first, the moment of glory.

That sounds like euphoria, which only "they" are allowed to feel and bask in when they cosplay as women, but women themselves aren't allowed to feel it for anything that is about being a woman, lest it be "transphobic". We can't like or enjoy anything about ourselves without it hurting their little feefees.

Women are NPCs for men's stories and their emotional support animals. Considering ourselves full human beings is overstepping!

We’re also not allowed to be competitive. We are supposed to step back and participate in sports just for fun and games, but somehow that’s off-limits for trans-identified people who have every option of playing in neighborhood fun league, but instead choose to compete at high levels in the women’s division.

It doesn't matter if just one TiM who is doesn't win all the races is allowed in. Just one man allowed in sends all the other girls and women down one step on the rung. No males in female sports. No thank you.

[–] MinervaM 6 points Edited

It would be really nice to believe, as Sullivan is trying to do, that Lia Thomas is a bug rather than a feature of the trans activist project. But when you really look into it you find that's not true. Fundamentally what trans identified males have been trying to do is to socially and medically construct an experience of being female and "trans rights" mean the compelling other people (predominantly those who are actually female) to engage in constructing that experience for them. If that's the right that Lia Thomas has then competing on the women's team is baked in. And compelling the women on the team to be silent about their female bodies is baked in. Sorry Sullivan, it's not a bug.

This is the money quote: "What the trans movement is now doing, after this comprehensive victory, is not about rights at all. It is about cultural revolution. It’s a much broader movement to dismantle the sex binary, to see biology as a function of power and not science, and thereby to deconstruct the family and even a fixed category such as homosexuality. You can support trans rights and oppose all of this. But they want you to believe you can’t. That’s the bait-and-switch. Don’t take it."

I'm not going along with it.

It was never about rights though. What are trans rights? Can anyone even answer this basic question?

I even defend their right to have unnecessary surgery and dress however they want. (Although I do think informed consent and medical ethics should put significantly more brakes on medical practitioners.) But all their other ‘rights’ really just come down to ignoring women’s boundaries and safety. Lots of males think these are fundamental rights, but few get away with it as easily as TiMs.

Ok so how does that differ from just plain human rights? What is specifically trans about the right to get elective surgery and dress how you want? I don't see it. They already have the same rights as everyone else. They are asking for special privileges.

[–] a-witch-a-broad 13 points Edited

It never was about rights. The comment I wrote the other day about that teacher's union leader getting sued for publicly calling a GC man a dangerous bigot got me researching the primary documents that generated the training materials the GC man objected to, and as part of that research I learned that TRAs are hell-bent on circumventing normal procedure as much as possible to gain power as fast as possible. TRAs saw the social conditions were good with same-sex marriage having been legalized in the country and opportunistically piggybacked onto a movement that strictly had to do with sexual orientation, exploiting and using up all of the goodwill created by people who worked hard to demonstrate that they were not a threat to society. TRAs are not using trust-building, relationship-enhancing tactics, but focus on capturing institutions with the goal of imposing ideological doctrine from the top down. If they'd cared about "rights," they would have stopped when they realized sexual orientation was already protected, philosophical and religious beliefs were already protected, and anti-sexism protections already prohibited discriminating against them for not dressing or acting like a member of their sex "should" act.

Edit to add: and also disability status, mental or physical, is also protected, meaning that if they were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, no one would legally be permitted to use that against them either. So they were all absolutely covered in all respects.

If you can, would you mind linking to that post? It's not coming up when I use the search function but I would be interested in reading it.

Thank you. I definitely wouldn't have found that with the search function.

It never was about rights. It was about dismantling safe spaces for women and removing safeguarding for children.

It has never been about rights. It has ALWAYS been about transgressing boundaries, assuming victim/martyr stance and forcing acceptance.

[–] NotCis [OP] 13 points Edited

I'm not a subscriber so can't see the full-text in the link above, but here's most of the excerpt that a friend forwarded me via email. Sorry in advance for any formatting weirdness:

An unusual thing happened in the conversation about transgender identity in America this week. The New York Times conceded that there is, indeed, a debate among medical professionals, transgender people, gays and lesbians and others about medical intervention for pre-pubescent minors who have gender dysphoria. The story pulled some factual punches, but any mildly-fair airing of this debate in the US MSM is a breakthrough of a kind.

Here’s the truth that the NYT was finally forced to acknowledge: “Clinicians are divided” over the role of mental health counseling before making irreversible changes to a child’s body. Among those who are urging more counseling and caution for kids are ground-breaking transgender surgeons. This very public divide was first aired by Abigail Shrier a few months ago on Bari’s Substack, of course, where a trans pioneer in sex-change surgery opined: “It is my considered opinion that due to some of the … I’ll call it just ‘sloppy,’ sloppy healthcare work, that we’re going to have more young adults who will regret having gone through this process.” Oof.

The NYT piece also concedes another key fact: that puberty blockers are neither harmless nor totally reversible. Money quote:

Some of the drug regimens bring long-term risks, such as irreversible fertility loss. And in some cases, thought to be quite rare, transgender people later “detransition” to the gender they were assigned at birth. Given these risks, as well as the increasing number of adolescents seeking these treatments, some clinicians say that teens need more psychological assessment than adults do. 

I would think that, just as a general rule, minors making permanent, life-changing decisions should receive more psychological treatment than adults. How on earth is this not the default? In what other field of medicine do patients diagnose themselves, and that alone is justification for dramatic, irreversible medication?

The NYT doesn’t give you the data for the “increasing number” of transitions because it’s hard to find in the US. In the UK, however, the data show a 3,200 percent rise in adolescents seeking transition over a decade — 70 percent of whom are girls seeking to become boys, a break from historical norms where boys/men were much more likely to seek transition. Nor does the NYT give any data for “detransitioners.” But any brief look online suggests they are not exactly “quite rare.” They are, in fact, becoming a small but recognizable and tenacious part of the trans landscape. And among the risks of puberty blockers that the NYT does not mention are neurological damage, bone-density loss, and a permanent inability to experience sexual pleasure. And in almost every case (98 percent in one report), puberty blockers are never reversed.

Other news has also forced a debate about trans women competing in female sports. A Penn swimmer, Lia Thomas, competed for three seasons as a male, transitioned to female, competed against biological women, and destroyed several records in one swoop — demonstrating the lingering benefits of a testosteroned adolescence, even after her T suppression therapy (the minimum requirement under NCAA rules is one year). As the WaPo pointed out, “she posted the fastest times of any female college swimmer in two events this season.” (There is still no mention of Lia Thomas in the NYT.) I defy anyone to watch these performances and still believe that biological sex makes no difference in many sports. Of course it does.

A recent internal report by the Transgender Law Center confirms the bleeding obvious: “Right now, our opposition wins the debate on trans youth in sports against any and all arguments we have tried for our side … Our base and persuadables want to support transgender student-athletes, but are extremely susceptible to our opposition’s argument that excluding trans youth is necessary to protect the fairness of women’s sports.” Well, yes. This is the problem. And why won’t you admit it — instead of insisting that there is no issue of fairness for biological women here at all?

To counter their opposition, the TLC report suggests emphasizing the collective nature of sports, and the benefits of trans inclusion for everyone. They suggest use of the term “genders” rather than gender. And they also lament how previous public education efforts “have reinforced the association between transgender people and whiteness in communities of color.” But none of it works. People know we have sex-segregated sports for a legitimate reason. And they’re not “transphobic” for supporting fairness.

There may be a pragmatic compromise here. There’s no reason, for example, to prevent trans men from playing in men’s sports. They will compete with an actual disadvantage, by and large. You could include trans women in sports where there is no serious male advantage, where skill is much more important than strength and speed. And one way to include trans women in women’s events without penalizing women would be simply to exclude trans women from medals, or records, in the most elite events. In most schools, most of the time, no problem. It’s not a perfect solution, because there is none. But if we were all honest about the science, it’s an option.

The trouble is: too many on the fairness side refuse to see the genuine toll of exclusion, and too many on the trans side refuse to acknowledge biology or common sense. And so one side misgenders and denigrates trans athletes, while the other side insists that opposition is always a function of bigotry, or of controlling power. In fact, the TLC report recommends creating “villains” as one of the more effective strategies. Here’s a good example published in the NYT: “It’s not even, really, about women’s rights or biology. It’s about how terrifying some Americans find any shift toward inclusivity and tolerance.” That may be effective propaganda, but it simply isn’t true. And it’s sickening to claim that people are full of fear and hate simply because they have a different view on a complex subject.

Among those seeking a compromise is the Women’s Sports Policy Working Group, led in part by Martina Navratilova, who once had a pioneering trans coach, Renée Richards, who acknowledged she had an unfair advantage over cis women, and is now a member of the working group. “Options [for trans athletes] could include separate heats, additional events or divisions and/or the handicapping of results,” according to a report on the group’s work. Another of its leaders, Donna Lopiano, just penned a piece on how to update the NCAA’s rules to both maintain fairness in competition and protect trans participation. “Sport’s transgender debate needs compromise not conflict,” begins an op-ed by another member of the group, Joanna Harper, a trans athlete herself. Are all of these women “villains”?

Perspective is also needed. This week, the writer Colin Wright posed on Twitter the following question: “What rights do trans people currently not have but want that don’t involve replacing biological sex with one’s subjective ‘gender identity’?” And the response was, of course, crickets. The truth is: the 6-3 Bostock decision places trans people in every state under the protection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s done. It’s built on the sturdy prohibition on sex discrimination. A Trump nominee wrote the ruling.

What the trans movement is now doing, after this comprehensive victory, is not about rights at all. It is about cultural revolution. It’s a much broader movement to dismantle the sex binary, to see biology as a function of power and not science, and thereby to deconstruct the family and even a fixed category such as homosexuality. You can support trans rights and oppose all of this. But they want you to believe you can’t. That’s the bait-and-switch. Don’t take it.

The radicalism of this assault on nature, science and bodily integrity is not hidden. Just before Christmas, for example, New York Magazine ran a first-person cover-story that celebrated “an asexual gay man with a penis and a vagina.” His hatred of his natal femaleness stemmed in part, he says, from being groomed to “live as a sexually available cute-lady vessel capable of carrying white babies” as part of “patriarchal, heterosexist, racist, capitalist acculturation.” He insists that he has always had a “native penis, which some people call a clitoris.” Now, surgeons have carved out flesh from his thigh to create a simulacrum of a non-native dick:

Weeks before my procedure, I got a block of clay and sat meditating and molding by feel, letting my body answer. The resulting phallus was the exact size I’d been requesting. For days, I lay on the floor on and off in the sunlight coming into my living room, asking my ancestors and transcestors for guidance. Some people might kill for this kind of access and choice. Certainly many, many, many, many people have died in the fight for it. One night, I woke up from a dead sleep, and all I heard was: Take the big dick.

What’s interesting here is not the person’s evident mental instability. (The author had previously organized his own rape as therapy for meeting rape victims in Haiti, and published a piece about it.) It’s the decision by the editors of the magazine to elevate and exploit this assault on bodily sex, to épater les bourgeois one more time, to insist on the normalcy of this, as if it were a matter of civil rights rather than a foray into the nihilist and grotesque. They end the piece thus:

Days before my penis’s first birthday, the warmth and weight of it lay against my vulva, each supporting the other, holding me.

This is what the editors seem to promote: a view of the body as beyond sex or gender, to be created and recreated at will and indefinitely, and an abandonment of any stable notion of sex at all. Whatever else this is, it is not a matter of civil rights.

The maximal inclusion of trans people in society is, to my mind, a moral duty. People with crippling gender dysphoria often suffer terribly and need relief. Protection from discrimination is essential — and is already the law. But that does not mean that biology has ceased to exist; that “trans” is always a stable identity; or that children need no more than affirmation and medical treatment to change sex when they violate gender roles. It does not mean allowing unfair sporting contests; or inviting children to make decisions they simply do not have the capacity to make. To argue this is not hate. It’s just sanity.

We need to slow and calm down. We need to reintroduce caution, skepticism and medical science, alongside compassion, to counter ideological fervor and adolescent delusion. And we need to debate all of this without anyone being threatened, demonized or banished from the public square. It’s doable, and it will be to the great benefit of trans and gay kids and adults now and in the future if we do this carefully and we do this right.

"It’s doable, and it will be to the great benefit of trans and gay kids and adults now and in the future if we do this carefully and we do this right." I appreciate that Sullivan finally understands that the gender identity movement is not really about civil rights for trans-identifying people...that far more manipulative, revolutionary, regressive, and dystopian goals drive its momentum.

What I DON'T appreciate is, however, what I believe to be his bias, in the end, in favor of trans-identifying people and genderist ideology: concerning the sporting solutions around fairness, NOT once did he suggest that women's sports be reserved completely for...women, instead suggesting analyzing each sport for how best to include female-identifying males in women's sports, saying "It’s not a perfect solution, because there is none."

Oh yes there is, Andrew: There IS a perfect solution. Recognizing that female-identifying males are NOT women, AND prioritizing the integrity of women's sports over validating males SUBJECTIVE gender identities. THAT's the friggin solution.

The trouble is: too many on the fairness side refuse to see the genuine toll of exclusion, and too many on the trans side refuse to acknowledge biology or common sense. And so one side misgenders and denigrates trans athletes, while the other side insists that opposition is always a function of bigotry, or of controlling power. In fact, the TLC report recommends creating “villains” as one of the more effective strategies.

I super disagree with this part. It’s not “misgendering” to accurately sex someone; rather, it’s controlling for trans people to demand I play along with something I don’t believe (their own mental delusion or fetish). And we’re not excluding trans-identified males, we are insisting that men do their fair share of “including” so that women’s sex-based provisions remain inclusive and hospitable to female people.

"....too many on the fairness side refuse to see the genuine toll of exclusion." Genuine toll of exclusion? Tell that to women inmates now forced to share intimate cells and showering facilities with female-identifying male inmates convicted of rape/ murder of children and women. Tell that to the girls and women who no longer feel comfortable using communal toilets, gyms, and showering facilities due to female-identifying male intruders, who may very well be opportunistic voyeurs, masturbators, and exhibitionists. Get a grip, Andrew.

This. The exclusion of the women fleeing these spaces and feeling unsafe is not even considered. Even something as basic as muslim women or rape survivors who currently use women-only swim hours or gyms no longer feeling welcome in a facility that has to suddenly 'include' male bodied people.

The exclusion of men from women’s sports? The exclusion of British citizens from voting in German elections? The exclusion of Hindus from Catholic communion?

… none of these is unfair. In fact, in those circumstances inclusion is a betrayal of women, citizens, and religious believers.

Basically the pushers of transgender ideology want women to be kind and compromise. Like a trained dog ‘sit’ and ‘roll over’ and ‘eat the leftovers from the table’, yet still adores their master.

"...New York Magazine ran a first-person cover-story that celebrated “an asexual gay man with a penis and a vagina”..." Andrea Long Chu, female-identifying male & author of "Females" and the assertion that "the essence of femaleness" is an "open mouth, blank, blank eyes, and an expectant assh*le," landed a plum job with New York Magazine...be on the lookout for more misogynist, dystopian gender identity horrors from this publication...

"the genuine toll of exclusion"

I think this means that when you acknowledge that a trans identified male is actually male it undermines his project to socially construct an experience of being female. And Sullivan believes that other people, mainly people who actually are female, should engage with socially construting that experience.

I actually heard him say on a talk show that he doesn't see the problem with men in women's bathrooms....nothing bad ever happened or is likely to happen. Typical man who doesn't care about women.

"The maximal inclusion of trans people in society is, to my mind, a moral duty. " Surprised Sullivan still feels the need to include statements like this. You get the feeling he knows trans is all bs.

I wonder how he defines “maximal inclusion”? I suspect he’d be ok with me being forced to call them ‘she’ and share the loo and women’s mentoring groups with them. Why is sport that different?