New trans laws

[Wayward Son]

No sane person cares about transwomen in sports.

That's a distraction.

The real issue is AFAB women getting raped in prison by transwomen.

So you'd saying that rape in prison is primarily a trans problem? 

What planet have you been living on??? 

[cherrypoptart]

More people are going to be directly affected by transwomen and transgirls in grade school, high school, and college sports. Seeing their daughters and themselves not get their Squid Game's fair shot on the playground is going to hurt them personally in a way that women getting raped by women in prison is less likely to do. When you see in a swim competition all of the women coming within a second or two of each other and the transwoman winning by a huge difference of ten seconds or something, many people have just the gut reaction of wondering how fair that really is.

[rightleft22]

My brother in law makes these kind of, what I call, rotten apple arguments where
100 apples one of which is rotten means the whole basket/notion/idea/moment is rotten... I win.
Very frustrating to engage with 

[Grant]

My brother in law makes these kind of, what I call, rotten apple arguments where
100 apples one of which is rotten means the whole basket/notion/idea/moment is rotten... I win.
Very frustrating to engage with

Nutpicking. 

[alai]

No sane person cares about transwomen in sports.

That's a distraction.

The real issue is AFAB women getting raped in prison by transwomen.

English-language note:  trans functioning as an adjective here.  Traditionally those come with spaces.  Thisisnotgermanwearespeakinghere.

From observational studies of TERFs and "traditional" disparagers of trans people , the "real issue" is anything that gets them to a cleft-stick argument.  On the one hand they need a talking point where it'd be bad if trans people transitioned too little or too late.  On the other, they need one where it'd be bad if trans people transitioned too much or too soon.  Then it just remains to inch -- or gish-gallop, according to taste -- the two together until there's literally no way trans people can win either way.

[Ephrem Moseley]

So you'd saying that rape in prison is primarily a trans problem? 

No, I did not say that.

Instead, I said it was a problem.

[Ephrem Moseley]

fair shot on the playground is going to hurt them personally in a way that women getting raped by women in prison is less likely to do

wow!

I disrespectfully disagree.

[Ephrem Moseley]

My brother in law makes these kind of, what I call, rotten apple arguments where
100 apples one of which is rotten means the whole basket/notion/idea/moment is rotten... I win.
Very frustrating to engage with

Believe me, I understand. It's the same kind of argument with rotten police officers.

The problem is not with transwomen. It's with predators *pretending* to be transwomen.

The vast majority of predators are AMAB.

[Ephrem Moseley]

English-language note:  trans functioning as an adjective here.  Traditionally those come with spaces.  Thisisnotgermanwearespeakinghere.

nah that's a trick on the path to arguing TWAW.

Transwomen are NOT women.

Well, according to at least six people.

You don't get to define language for others. The words I use mean exactly what I want them to mean.

So transwomen it is for me.

From observational studies of TERFs and "traditional" disparagers of trans people , the "real issue" is anything that gets them to a cleft-stick argument.  On the one hand they need a talking point where it'd be bad if trans people transitioned too little or too late.  On the other, they need one where it'd be bad if trans people transitioned too much or too soon.  Then it just remains to inch -- or gish-gallop, according to taste -- the two together until there's literally no way trans people can win either way.

agreed, there is no way transwomen can win either way

they are correct that JK Rowling's POV leads to suicide: personality suicides, if not literal ones

am I banned yet?

[cherrypoptart]

Of course, I'm not saying the convict women getting raped by transwomen in prison are hurt less personally.

I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen, or to be beaten themselves, so it's going to seem like a bigger issue because it affects more people. It's numbers, not severity.

[Ephrem Moseley]

Of course, I'm not saying the convict women getting raped by transwomen in prison are hurt less personally.

I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen so it's going to seem like a bigger issue because it affects more people. It's numbers, not severity.

wow!!!

[cherrypoptart]

I'm not sure what your issue is with this. I'm not saying women getting raped in prison isn't a problem. But there aren't twenty states right now passing laws about it. That's not what people are getting upset about at PTA meetings. And there are already laws against it. Nobody is arguing that transwomen should be free to rape women in prison, but people are arguing that if transwomen in sports beat everyone they are competing against by huge margins, margins never seen previously, ten seconds or more in track or swimming, by multiple stones in weightlifting or what have you, that's fair and square, as it should be, and the system is working as intended. If the girls no longer have a fair shot at an athletic scholarship when there is a transwoman in the mix, there is nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, it's magnificent. That's progress.

[alai]

Transwomen are NOT women.

Well, according to at least six people.

You don't get to define language for others. The words I use mean exactly what I want them to mean.

You do you, Humpty-Dumpty.  But trans is most definitely an adjective.  Source:  the English language.

You realize this is of course a dangerously Centrist Dad position.  Trans people will be mildly annoyed at the phrase-embedded space, and give up on you as a standard-issue hopeless case at the statement of dismissal.  But the hardcore trads and the TERFs will both despise you for even using that degree of recognition, and will instead insist of decades-old alternatives.  Or ones they've made up themselves to be yet more slurry still.

agreed, there is no way transwomen can win either way

You don't sound so sure about trans men.  Or just not nearly as interested.  But my statement was deliberately about trans people generally;  the TERFs definitely have a panic on both fronts in mind.  The "trad" transphobes, who knows about.  Tolstoy's unhappy families.

am I banned yet?

From?

[TheDrake]

When it comes to prison rape, you do realize that male staff are the significant threat to women, right? And that women can also sexually assault fellow women?

[Ephrem Moseley]

I'm not sure what your issue is with this. I'm not saying women getting raped in prison isn't a problem. But there aren't twenty states right now passing laws about it. That's not what people are getting upset about at PTA meetings. And there are already laws against it. Nobody is arguing that transwomen should be free to rape women in prison, but people are arguing that if transwomen in sports beat everyone they are competing against by huge margins, margins never seen previously, ten seconds or more in track or swimming, by multiple stones in weightlifting or what have you, that's fair and square, as it should be, and the system is working as intended. If the girls no longer have a fair shot at an athletic scholarship when there is a transwoman in the mix, there is nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, it's magnificent. That's progress.

one situation has a solution, and the other one doesn't, from the POV of the woman in question

I mean, start your own sports league

you don't get to choose your cellmate as far as I can tell

[Ephrem Moseley]

When it comes to prison rape, you do realize that male staff are the significant threat to women, right? And that women can also sexually assault fellow women?

yup

doesn't mean we should add more opportunities for predators who pretend to be transwomen to get their jollies

[alai]

The problem is not with transwomen. It's with predators *pretending* to be transwomen.

That might be a problem in some contexts.  Question is, is it a real one, so much as one that just looms huge in transphobic imagination and talking points?  And in what sense is it addressed by slandering, erasing, and denying the rights of (actual) trans people?

The vast majority of predators are AMAB.

Maybe you really are of the Radical Feminist flavour.  If gender-identity isn't the problem, but (an essentialist take on) biological sex, why are you fixating on the "gender" presentation, as opposed to the actual "sex" problem?  (Not that I'm trying to recruit you to Mary Daly's "radical male population reduction" solution, I wish to stress.)

[Ephrem Moseley]

You do you, Humpty-Dumpty.  But trans is most definitely an adjective.  Source:  the English language.

then: I do not claim to speak English as you do. I have forked it into a dialect that I like.

You realize this is of course a dangerously Centrist Dad position.

it's worse than that

not only am I a transphobe, it shouldn't surprise you that (using your language of course, which I am familiar with) I am a homophobe, a racist, a sexist, and best of ALL, a fascist. Look to the left...

You don't sound so sure about trans men.  Or just not nearly as interested.  But my statement was deliberately about trans people generally;  the TERFs definitely have a panic on both fronts in mind.  The "trad" transphobes, who knows about.  Tolstoy's unhappy families.

not as interested; transmen are not nearly as much as a problem because the vast majority of predators are AMAB

my problem is with PREDATORS do you understand? IOW heterosexual men pretending...

do you understand?

transwomen are collateral damage, sadly, no other option, someone must lose here

From?

you name it, I've been it, I'm seeing how long I can last here

[Ephrem Moseley]

That might be a problem in some contexts.  Question is, is it a real one, so much as one that just looms huge in transphobic imagination and talking points?  And in what sense is it addressed by slandering, erasing, and denying the rights of (actual) trans people?

Yes. It is a fact that AFAB women have been raped by persons AMAB claiming to be a "woman"

We can EASILY drive that kind of rape to zero. EASILY.

Collateral damage yes, and I do not care, they're mentally ill (using my language of course)

Maybe you really are of the Radical Feminist flavour.  If gender-identity isn't the problem, but (an essentialist take on) biological sex, why are you fixating on the "gender" presentation, as opposed to the actual "sex" problem?  (Not that I'm trying to recruit you to Mary Daly's "radical male population reduction" solution, I wish to stress.)

JK Rowling explained this far better than I ever could...

[alai]

then: I do not claim to speak English as you do. I have forked it into a dialect that I like.

Technical term is idiolect.  (No really, that's not a insult by portmanteau, or such like, much as it might sound like it.)

You realize this is of course a dangerously Centrist Dad position.

it's worse than that

not only am I a transphobe, it shouldn't surprise you that (using your language of course, which I am familiar with) I am a homophobe, a racist, a sexist, and best of ALL, a fascist. Look to the left...

When I said "you realize of course", to spell it out a little more clearly -- as is evidently required! -- it was intended as a gentle hint otherwise.  The use of "transwoman" (or "transman", indeed) is seen as not nearly transphobic enough by the hardcore types.  So you're in danger of striking them as an obnoxiously accommodating moderate.  Which I don't think is the vibe you're going for.

do you understand? [...]

do you understand?

Are you stuck in a loop?

transwomen are collateral damage, sadly, no other option, someone must lose here

Why must they?  You're dismissive of cherry's more mix-and-match suite of concerns, and don't give a damn about trans men.  So what on earth argues for some broad-spectrum anti-trans agenda -- or even attitudes -- if the physical spaces for women thing is your only worry?  And to reiterate the point you seem determined to miss:  what do you plan on doing about the vastly predominant risk to the physical safety of women -- to wit, cis males.

If the answer is "because I really want them to lose", just skip straight to it.

you name it, I've been it, I'm seeing how long I can last here

From here?  Huh.  Weird.  I'd bet money both the honorary patron and the (now site?) admin are both well to the right of you on this issue.  While Crunch insists there was a Vast Purge of people even further to the right than them in the previous server-move, I find that strains credibility.  I'm not going to share my theories as to how you might get banned as a) I don't want to be seen to be encouraging you, and b) I don't want to actually encourage you.

[alai]

We can EASILY drive that kind of rape to zero. EASILY.

And why is this tiny fraction the only ones you care about "driving" anywhere?  Especially if it's just by semantic trick that doesn't reduce the total at all.

Collateral damage yes, and I do not care, they're mentally ill (using my language of course)

They're "pretending" and they're "mentally ill"?  Have you lost track of your own theory here?

JK Rowling explained this far better than I ever could...

Well, that's damning her with faint praise, on this issue and otherwise.  But JKR is indeed of the TERFy sort -- loosely speaking at least:  certainly a self-identifying left-wing feminist, and one with a long of the "second wave" analysis of a number of issues, if not precisely "radical".

[Ephrem Moseley]

Are you stuck in a loop?

No, I am trying to get an answer, and you seem to be evasive to me.

Why must they?

Because no AFAB should ever be imprisoned with an AMAB. Never. They lose, or transwomen lose.

Too dangerous because any AMAB predator has the ability to present himself as a transwomen. Further, AFAB predators are a rounding error as compared to AMAB predators.

Hell, such a AMAB predator could claim to be a transgender butch lesbian! No changes required at all! I guess that never occurred to you.

[alai]

Further, AFAB predators are a rounding error as compared to AMAB predators.

You're insisting on continuing to miss the entire actual "rounding error" point here.  (I'm genuinely unsure whether deliberately or by other means.)  Why care so much about largely hypothetical trans offenders, and so clearly very little about cis male ones?

Rather than trying to hijack a trans thread into a "because sexual offenders!" one, you could alternatively try having an actual serious discussion on sexual offending generally.

[Ephrem Moseley]

And why is this tiny fraction the only ones you care about "driving" anywhere?  Especially if it's just by semantic trick that doesn't reduce the total at all.

Fair question. It's because we are currently in the middle of a cultural shift. Either TWAW or they're not; each culture must decide that.

If it's completely accepted that TWAW, in the same way that gay marriage is now accepted to be marriage (as compared to the 70s), then all AMAB predators rejoice, yes? The numbers here are directional. They ARE NOT STATIC, I apologize for shouting, but I thought that this was obvious.

They're "pretending" and they're "mentally ill"?  Have you lost track of your own theory here?

No, you've misunderstood. The ones pretending are the predators. They can pretend to be transgender butch lesbians right now.

Now, being a predator is certainly a mental illness, but that wasn't the group I was referring to. I was instead saying that all transgender people are mentally ill, just as they were considered to be pre-70s.

[Ephrem Moseley]

You're insisting on continuing to miss the entire actual "rounding error" point here.  (I'm genuinely unsure whether deliberately or by other means.)  Why care so much about largely hypothetical trans offenders, and so clearly very little about cis male ones?

because the numbers ARE NOT STATIC, plus "transgender butch lesbians" pretending makes predators salivate (if and only if that is culturally accepted), I believe it's fair to say.

[cherrypoptart]

And the thing about all the high school and college girls and even the pro athletes who are getting shut out of their own sports by transwomen is that they can't really say anything, not without severe consequences from the tolerant liberal mob. This is happening in the most liberal bastions of America so many of these people would be liberals themselves, are in almost all other regards, but they are getting an up close and personal experience about the sacrifices lofty ideals on paper entail in real life. And there is no recourse because there can be no discourse. They see what happened to Rowling among many others and there's nothing to stop any of that and a whole lot worse from happening to any of them if they dare to dissent. That's going to push their resentment and quest for justice underground where it will remain buried until they get into the privacy of the voting booth when they can finally unleash their fury at having all of their years of training come to naught, without a fair shot at valuable opportunities or even the possibility of seeing their dreams come true.

It's an incredibly valuable lesson and though the cost may seem high now, in comparison to the price many others around the world paid to learn it, these girls and young women are getting off cheap. People in Venezuela and Cuba wished they could have learned their lesson about liberalism so early in life, that when they come from the hard left, the end results of the promises of equality and social justice when they finally get delivered are never quite as good as they sounded in the beginning.

[rightleft22]

And the thing about all the high school and college girls and even the pro athletes who are getting shut out of their own sports by transwomen

Do we have data on this?

[TheDeamon]

I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen so it's going to seem like a bigger issue because it affects more people. It's numbers, not severity.

wow!!!

It's documented fact now. A transwoman competing in a high school swim meet beat their competitors by a wide margin. In fact, the margin was so wide they set new records for the competition while doing so, from my understanding of things. Leading to a lot of upset officials and especially parents.

[TheDeamon]

I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen so it's going to seem like a bigger issue because it affects more people. It's numbers, not severity.

wow!!!

It's documented fact now. A transwoman competing in a high school college swim meet beat their competitors by a wide margin. In fact, the margin was so wide they set new records for the competition while doing so, from my understanding of things. Leading to a lot of upset officials and especially parents.

Had to make a correction on that, after chasing the story down.

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/controversy-of-the-year-transgender-swimmer-lia-thomas-swims-fastest-times-in-the-nation/

[TheDrake]

This certainly brings up some interesting questions about our gender segregated sporting world, not just for students but also professionals and international athletes. Particularly when you consider professionals who aren't just sad about not getting a blue ribbon prize, but they are going to lose significant real dollars in terms of prize money. It seems there are a few options.

1. Have the trans individual compete alongside their birth gender. This would potentially mean some havoc in some sports with respect to locker room etiquette. Individual sports - less so. If you're on the swim team, you can go change in another room. It will certainly look odd to see someone dressed like a girl and looking like a girl on the podium with the boys, but that's probably not the worst.

2. Tell the trans individual they don't get to do sports anymore. That seems pretty abusive to me. I know you love soccer, but now that you identify as a woman you can't play anymore?

3. Let them compete with their identified gender. This leads to what we're already talking about which is problematic with respect to competition.

4. Create their own special category. No one has ever tried this one out yet, but would certainly rile up the transwomen are women crowd.

5. Handicap them in some way. Add or subtract time. Only works in races. Imperfect, but could scale it to the respective records for men versus women.

6. Desegregate sports. Just take the ten fastest athletes regardless of gender and say here you go. Most of this time you'll have boys dominate the top spots, but I would expect some women to pop into the "A" class and be able to beat some of the boys - and not all of them would be trans.

[Fenring]

Unfortunately, TheDrake, all of those options are either untenable or unacceptable, once one is intent on conflating personal comportment guidelines (how you treat someone you meet in daily life) with official policies. For instance, the proposition "treat and address this individual as if they are a woman", which is often argued to be a matter of goodwill, politeness, etc, is not the same as the proposition "this person must be treated as a woman in any relevant matter in any capacity of life." Once both of these become mandatory (putting aside that the latter is impossible in some contexts, e.g. medical) it's a no-way-out scenario where someone loses. I'm talking about a narrow realm of life, mind you, of which sporting is one example. In the case of socially talking with people in a cafe and whatnot it shouldn't matter.

[rightleft22]

I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen

Really? 
How prevalent is the specific sport/trans issue? Is this sport issue the most important concern with regards to Trans debate?

[alai]

1. Have the trans individual compete alongside their birth gender. This would potentially mean some havoc in some sports with respect to locker room etiquette. Individual sports - less so. If you're on the swim team, you can go change in another room. It will certainly look odd to see someone dressed like a girl and looking like a girl on the podium with the boys, but that's probably not the worst.

Not a great solution with trans male athletes, clearly.  (Yes they exist, despite the singular obsession of trad transphobes with trans women.)

2. Tell the trans individual they don't get to do sports anymore. That seems pretty abusive to me. I know you love soccer, but now that you identify as a woman you can't play anymore?

For a lot of pro sports, where in effect pretty much all women are told this, this is brutally workable solution.  But not exactly progress, to put it mildly.

3. Let them compete with their identified gender. This leads to what we're already talking about which is problematic with respect to competition.

I don't know exactly what the US collegiate rules on this, but I don't believe they're anything like as lax as "identified gender".  So that's an odd sort of straw man the trans-panickers are floating, in that they're using it to attack "self-identification", but the situation in sports is actually the even trickier one of residual benefit.

4. Create their own special category. No one has ever tried this one out yet, but would certainly rile up the transwomen are women crowd.

Or multiple special categories, in the extreme case.

5. Handicap them in some way. Add or subtract time. Only works in races. Imperfect, but could scale it to the respective records for men versus women.

In principle this'd work in any sport with a quantifiable scoring system, which given the requirement for winner and losers, is essentially all sport.  Almost certainly hugely controversial on an ongoing basis -- but in this area, what isn't?

6. Desegregate sports. Just take the ten fastest athletes regardless of gender and say here you go. Most of this time you'll have boys dominate the top spots, but I would expect some women to pop into the "A" class and be able to beat some of the boys - and not all of them would be trans.

Works great for equestrianism, which isn't segregated by gender (or sex) at all, but famously into "I'm an old-money toff!" and "obviously I don't compete in equestrianism".  Also ultramarathon running (not sure about UM cycling), it's been claimed.  But for a lot of sport this would be a lot like "pro sports situation normal", per the earlier case.

[TheDrake]

Of course it isn't prevalent. But we're gonna talk about it anyway for some reason. Supposedly, if Susie from Oshkosh gets second place to Laura, a transfemale, it is crippling to her self-esteem and limiting her opportunity to be a star. It is much more important than the blow to Laura's self-esteem and eliminating her opportunity to participate in sports altogether.

[alai]

Well, this the Ornery American forum, right?  Second place is "first loser".

[Fenring]

I'm not sure why this didn't occur to me before, but a lot of transpeople are taking or have the option to take hormone treatments of some kind, right? I've heard some talk about issues with kids (like young teens or even pre-teens) trying to obtain such things. For adults obviously it's their choice what to take, but let's say for instance a transwoman is taking some kind of hormone in order to affect her biochemistry. I don't know if it would estrogen or something totally different (I know zero about the pharmacology in this topic), but whatever it is the person is taking, how could that legally be distinguished from steroids or other biochemistry-altering drugs? Sure, one imagines that someone wishing to be more feminine might be taking something that, if anything, would make them less 'manly' (e.g. testosterone) rather than more, but I wouldn't be able to guess if that maps 1-to-1 with making you 'weaker', for lack of a better term. Would a transwoman taking hormone treatments pass an objective drug test for sports?

[Wayward Son]

So you'd saying that rape in prison is primarily a trans problem? 

No, I did not say that.

Instead, I said it was a problem.

Ok, it's a problem.  So are people who irrationally hate trans people.  How big a problem?  How serious a problem?  How many rights of a person should be ignored/trampled upon to solve this problem?

But I guess you answered that:

one situation has a solution, and the other one doesn't, from the POV of the woman in question

So there is a simple, easy solution to this problem, right?  So why not do it?

But then there is the question of what happens to trans people who are shucked off men's prisons.  Wouldn't they also be subject to rape?  In fact, being trans, wouldn't they be targeted more often for rape and other persecution than if they were in a women's prison?  And what does that do to the trans person, being forced to live like a gender she doesn't believe she is?  That causes a great deal of mental suffering, as I've heard.  Isn't that just transferring the problem from one group to another?  To a group, in fact, that you don't believe are the actual perpetrators of the original crime of raping women?

Ah, yes, but you acknowledge that problem:

transwomen are collateral damage, sadly, no other option, someone must lose here

Seems like the real problem is lack of imagination on your part.

But what about transferring the problem to another group?  You've considered that, too.

Collateral damage yes, and I do not care, they're mentally ill (using my language of course)

Of course.  You're not concerned about them because they are "mentally ill."  And mentally ill people don't deserve the consideration and empathy we give "normal" people, do they?  They are less than normal people, aren't they?  Kinda sub-human, right?  I mean, you just said that you don't consider them worth the care of other people.  That puts them at a lower level, doesn't it?  A "sub" level, if you will.

Which, I strongly suspect, is the real reason you're so concerned about women being raped by pseudo-trans people in women's prison.  Because you're looking for any excuse to treat them as less-than-human.  And even though this isn't a problem that they themselves are causing, you have no problem if they are the ones punished for it because they are mentally ill.  And you have no problem punishing people who are mentally ill even if it isn't their fault.

In other words, you are full-fledged trans bigot.  No wonder why your coworker made you physically ill.  Because you don't think of him as a fellow human.

You really should consider talking to a psychiatrist.  I think she'd be able to help you.  Far more than she'd be able to help those you consider "mentally ill."

[Fenring]

Collateral damage yes, and I do not care, they're mentally ill (using my language of course)

Of course.  You're not concerned about them because they are "mentally ill."  And mentally ill people don't deserve the consideration and empathy we give "normal" people, do they?  They are less than normal people, aren't they?  Kinda sub-human, right?  I mean, you just said that you don't consider them worth the care of other people.  That puts them at a lower level, doesn't it?  A "sub" level, if you will.

Ok, let's play devil's advocate for a moment and assume hypothetically that we are, in fact, talking about mentally ill people. Are you actually suggesting that people with a mental illness specifically centered around perception should have their desires based on this perception met with approval and also legal backup? For instance let's say a group of people suffering from paranoid schizophrenia were convinced that the government was spying on them 24/7, had chips in their heads, and had alien bodies hidden in a warehouse. Would you actually endorse adopting public policy to do mandatory inspections of warehouses for alien bodies, medical scans of people for microchip implants, and detailed sweeps of all public areas (and even private domiciles) for illegal surveillance devices? Would you actually advise people on a private social level to agree that they have microchip implants, to agree that the men in black are everywhere, and to demand something be done about the aliens? Now I know what you just wrote involves "consideration and empathy" but that's not actually what you're talking about, right? You're talking about not only being kind to these people, which to most decent people is a no-brainer, but also requiring others to agree with the perceptions, values, and desires of these people and in addition to change public policy and (in this case) sporting rules to accomodate them. So I ask again - would you make the same concessions to suit the perceptions of schizophrenic people who suffer from things ordinarily referred to as delusions?

After going through this exercise, the question at hand should simply be whether in fact it is true that the people in question are mentally ill. If they are not, I think the only proper answer would be to simply say they're not ill and don't have perceptual problems. The rest of your assertion seems to be a motive-speculative inference from the assertion that they're mentally ill. And let's be fair, 'Emphem' might well be playing a speculative logic-game with you, so on those grounds rather than assume villainous motives for a persona that most likely doesn't actually exist, I'd deal with the argument as presented.

So far a lot of the rhetoric around trans people specifically uses language such as "compassion" but actually means "give them everything they want". I'm not outright advocating against either of these, but they're different and shouldn't be conflated. There is a suspiciously absent category of left-wing people who believe in being charitable and kind while also politely disagreeing with the propositions presented.

[TheDrake]

actually means "give them everything they want"

They're not asking for pony rides and a trip to Disneyland. Their ask is "treat us with dignity and equality". This runs into sticky ethics in this sports world, which I'm sure is why those who oppose trans rights and consider them mentally ill love to zero in on it - it is the easiest argument to make that allows them to deny equality without seeming arbitrary about it. Thus the highly contrived "secret plan to rape everyone in the ladies room" or "secret plan to expose themselves" angle. Just another "this is happening everywhere, but its really hard to find" paranoia.

[Wayward Son]

The question is not so much whether or not they are truly "mentally ill."  Ephrem admits that they would be "collateral damage."  This says that he acknowledges that there may be, and probably is, harm to trans people by transferring them out of women's prison.  But he excuses it by saying they are "mentally ill."

So it's not really a question about whether or not to accommodate a mental illness or not.  It is a question of whether to inflict harm on a group he considers to be mentally ill because of actions by people outside that group.  And, according to his statement, he apparently feels that is sufficient justification.

And while it is fine that he may believe trans people to be "mentally ill," by his definition, don't you think that he should defer to the actual experts when it comes to public policy?  Or should every person be able to define who is or is not "mentally ill" by their own criteria and force the rest of us to follow it?  How exactly would that work?

[Fenring]

So it's not really a question about whether or not to accommodate a mental illness or not.  It is a question of whether to inflict harm on a group he considers to be mentally ill because of actions by people outside that group.  And, according to his statement, he apparently feels that is sufficient justification.

Not allowing someone to do something they were previously already not allowed to do is a stretch of the definition of "inflicting harm", depending on the circumstance. If we're talking about not treating a black person as a slave then yes, we must admit a historical bad practice that requires a change. To create a parallel you'd have to say that historically it was wrong to not have biologically born males participating in women's sports (for example), and that failing to redress this inflicts harm. I feel that in this case the word "harm" becomes a subjective moral evaluation, and that's where the difficulty lies. The term "mentally ill" would be a relevant factor if the harm done to someone is only a harm because of that illness (i.e. that they would not feel harmed if they were not mentally ill). So it sort of does bear in on the facts here.

And while it is fine that he may believe trans people to be "mentally ill," by his definition, don't you think that he should defer to the actual experts when it comes to public policy?  Or should every person be able to define who is or is not "mentally ill" by their own criteria and force the rest of us to follow it?  How exactly would that work?

I agree that this becomes mired in both definition and in advocacy, but my point was simply that it becomes a different discussion if the objective is to define whether a given person's perspective is 'admissible' in the sense that others must take it seriously. So again it's revelant whether we're talking about mental illness or not, because in the case of certain mental illnesses you are specifically told not to feed into delusions.

[alai]

For adults obviously it's their choice what to take, but let's say for instance a transwoman is taking some kind of hormone in order to affect her biochemistry.

Yup, typically estrogenic hormones and androgen-antagonists (testosterone blockers and similar).

I don't know if it would estrogen or something totally different (I know zero about the pharmacology in this topic), but whatever it is the person is taking, how could that legally be distinguished from steroids or other biochemistry-altering drugs?

Estrogens in fact are steroids.  But they're not anabolic (or obviously, androgenic) steroid, or corticoids, etc, so they're not on the (very long and very detailed) "banned substances" (and banned functional specific categories) list.

Would a transwoman taking hormone treatments pass an objective drug test for sports?

AFAIK, yes.  A cis male or cis female taking a ton of estrogenic or anti-androgenic would pass a drug test, though I imagine the tech would certainly pick them up, and think "huh, that's weird, better put that in my report to my supervisor!"

[Fenring]

They're not asking for pony rides and a trip to Disneyland. Their ask is "treat us with dignity and equality".

I'm obviously not on Ephrem's side on this topic, but what you're saying here is again a mushy non-policy that can act as a motte and bailey. "Treat me with diginity" can mean anything the person saying it wants it to mean. It can mean don't be rude to me, or it can mean that I will try to get you fired unless you use the language I prefer. In the particular case of sports they're asking to compete amongst people who are (let's say) comparatively disadvantaged compared to them in order to treat them with dignity. Just to be silly for a moment, I could argue that I've felt belittled all my life due to being short (not the case, but let's say it was) and that in order to treat me with dignity I should be allowed to compete in children's leagues since I feel like a child at heart, and short to boot. Or maybe people who have been fat-shamed should be allowed to wrestle in a lower weight class since they don't feel fat on the inside. These are silly examples, of course, and it's hard to create a direct mapping, but overall the issue isn't just about being nice to people, but in this particular discussion about whether to allow for active practive to change, which involves professional category standards, in order to make a very few people feel better. I'm not against people being made to feel better, but actually you sort of picked a bad example because it actually is kind of like asking to go to Disneyland. I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer was "dominating" in the kids' karate class. That was like a disney adventure for him (until the kids cornered him in an alley!), being allowd to compete with them on even footing. Again, a silly example but not totally inapplicable. In most respects he was more of a child than they were...

[alai]

There is a suspiciously absent category of left-wing people who believe in being charitable and kind while also politely disagreeing with the propositions presented.

TERFs fairly consistently identify as left wing.  I assume you're disqualifying them as not meeting the "charitable and kind" standard (though that seems very flexible and subjective, so I hesitate to say!)  Their feels, so very hurt.

Ephrem admits that they would be "collateral damage."  This says that he acknowledges that there may be, and probably is, harm to trans people by transferring them out of women's prison.  But he excuses it by saying they are "mentally ill."

Or that they're "pretending".  Or is it somehow both?  I don't think he needs or even aims to be consistent, he's just angrily venting.  Or outright trolling: it's increasingly hard to tell the difference.

And while it is fine that he may believe trans people to be "mentally ill," by his definition, don't you think that he should defer to the actual experts when it comes to public policy?

Actual experts?  And to defer to them?  Get out of here, commie technocrat!  See Brexit:  "We've had enough of experts."  Or "Fire Fauci."  Or one of our own "literally" laughing at a fact-check article about a (quasi-)academic claim about psychosis by...  asking a range of psychology academics.  People feel not just entitled to their own facts, but of their own parallel Académie, if it can be had.

Or should every person be able to define who is or is not "mentally ill" by their own criteria and force the rest of us to follow it?  How exactly would that work?

It works by selling a whole lot of Michael Savage and Ann Coulter books.  And padding out no few posts in this very parish.  Liberal?  Neurotic.  Critical of #45?  Deranged.  Act broadly in line with the current best-available medical science?  Pandemic mass formation psychosis.

[Fenring]

There is a suspiciously absent category of left-wing people who believe in being charitable and kind while also politely disagreeing with the propositions presented.

TERFs fairly consistently identify as left wing.  I assume you're disqualifying them as not meeting the "charitable and kind" standard (though that seems very flexible and subjective, so I hesitate to say!)  Their feels, so very hurt.

I meant they are suspiciously absent from the public debate in most circles. Obviously they exist (I would not call them TERFs since that term is loaded in a political turf war and even using it already means you are dedicated to a very specific ideology) but I mean that this perspective seems suspiciously absent a lot of the time. In the case of certain celebrities we hear about it because maybe they don't fear reprisal in the same way 'nobodies' do.

[Ephrem Moseley]

How exactly would that work?

conversion therapy

[TheDrake]

Not allowing someone to do something they were previously already not allowed to do is a stretch of the definition of "inflicting harm",

Previously, they were allowed to play sports with the gender they identified as. Now, they can't. It really depends on how you frame it in either direction. Personally, I think there's harm being done by schools that focus more on athletic fame and prowess than learning, but I don't think we'll get the math team or the chess club to interest the boosters.

Would it be okay for transwomen to even play chess interscholastically though? Or will the same argument be made that it limits opportunities for women to win stuff?

[alai]

These are silly examples, of course, and it's hard to create a direct mapping, but overall the issue isn't just about being nice to people, but in this particular discussion about whether to allow for active practive to change, which involves professional category standards, in order to make a very few people feel better.

If you're scoping the "very few people" as professional and Olympic-level sportspeople themselves, that's a pretty small number even to start with.  But it affects all trans people and even all trans-sympathetic people indirectly.  Kinda tough to say just not, "can't compete in organised sport" -- probably weren't able to anyway -- but "people like you have no pathway whatsoever to compete".

I meant they are suspiciously absent from the public debate in most circles. Obviously they exist (I would not call them TERFs since that term is loaded in a political turf war and even using it already means you are dedicated to a very specific ideology) but I mean that this perspective seems suspiciously absent a lot of the time. In the case of certain celebrities we hear about it because maybe they don't fear reprisal in the same way 'nobodies' do.

You should have a vacation in the UK.  Covid and visa rules permitting, of course!  Come to Europe, and see the sights:  like "because of my feminist views" regularly figuring as a wrapper for the most mindboggling amounts  of naked transphobia.  In academia, in print media, on TV, in the courts, on the internet.  (Just gonna say "mumsnet".)  I'll specify that it's branched out from its strict-sense "radical feminist" origins, but the only reason it's loaded otherwise is that people looking to both categorically and physically exclude trans people don't "identify with" that being the way they'd like those precise views to be framed.

conversion therapy

The Poe's-Law-ometer continues to deviate sharply.

Would it be okay for transwomen to even play chess interscholastically though? Or will the same argument be made that it limits opportunities for women to win stuff?

Chess is another interesting example of a "semi-integrated 'sport'".  A number of women have competed in men's/open/unrestricted events, though there's a parallel women's-only structure.  Clearly not (nor ever going to be) an Olympic event, so there's no overall framework for what they have to do.

[TheDeamon]

I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen

Really? 
How prevalent is the specific sport/trans issue? Is this sport issue the most important concern with regards to Trans debate?

Not very prevalent yet, but it has only been able to become an issue in the past few years. That it is already results in Transwomen breaking records in women's athletics just simply serves as a canary in the coal mine for what's coming as it becomes more common.

[TheDeamon]

Of course it isn't prevalent. But we're gonna talk about it anyway for some reason. Supposedly, if Susie from Oshkosh gets second place to Laura, a transfemale, it is crippling to her self-esteem and limiting her opportunity to be a star. It is much more important than the blow to Laura's self-esteem and eliminating her opportunity to participate in sports altogether.

No, it's more about how a male athelete who is otherwise "middle of the pack" and nothing special as a male, comes as being trans. Sits things out for 2 years as per NCAA guidelines as they undergo HRT and whatnot. Then return to the female athletic scene, and dominates the rankings.

Can't see anything going wrong with that in the long run. Can't cut it in the highly competitive male athletic field. Be brave, declare yourself a woman, then enjoy the accolades as you can reap the benefits of having gone through puberty as a male while you destroy all those highly competitive natural-born women on the athletic field.