Some people will be pleased, others will be very, very, angry. The relative size of the groups depends on how long it takes, as the latter group are dying out much faster.
We will. But you know that already.
4 Likes
@The_President here are some more studies/policies Iāve come across. The Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport finds that there hasnāt been any verifiable studies done in most sports to conclude than trans women have any advantages over cis women.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/reports/2021/02/08/495502/fair-play/
There is no evidence to support the claim that allowing transgender athletes to participate will reduce or harm participation in girlsā sports. Though anti-transgender groups focus on the very few, cherry-picked examples of competitions where a transgender athlete outperformed a cisgender athlete, evidence suggests that inclusion of transgender athletes has had no impact on sports participation or womenās athletic achievements.
Evidence from states that already have transgender-inclusive policies suggests that girlsā sports participation may even increase alongside inclusive policies. (see Figure 6) In California, where a statewide transgender-inclusive sports policy has allowed transgender youth to participate in sports since 2014, high school girlsā sports participation in 2020 was the highest it has ever been, increasing by almost 14 percent since 2014. Meanwhile, participation among boys increased by less than 2 percent in the same period.53
I feel the need to point out in that last quote that correlation <> causation. Still, itās at least possible. And while I donāt think that all the evidence is in yet (and would question cherry picking on both sides here), itās at least starting to look like just being inclusive has positives, and no realistic negatives.
Thatāsā¦ not true.
Gamete production, and the specific type of gametes carried by a critter, is a pretty fundamental element of sexually reproductive species. All mammals, as well as the vast majority of vertebrates, have two gamete typesā¦ and only two gametes. Creatures with large immobile gametes are females. Creatures with small motile gametes are males. These are well-defined and clearly binary characteristics of sexually reproductive species.
Some disorders of sexual development create variances, abnormalities, and ambiguities in primary sexual characteristics (reproductive organs including uterus, ovaries, and vaginas in human females; testes, penis, and prostate in human males). Some produce variances and abnormalities in secondary sexual characteristics (breast development and size, width of hips, deposition of fats across the body, onset of menarche for human females; lengthening of the penis, extension of the testes, development of facial hair and adamās apple for human males). In all of those cases though, the variationsin primary and secondary sexual characteristics do not create a third sex, nor an intermediate sex. Each individual is still only male or female.
The single possible exception to that would be a case of chimerism in which the individual has two sets of gametes. Chimerism, however, is in actuality a dual organism, comprised of mixed elements of two separate individual embryos.
Additionally, there are tertiary characteristics that are sexually dimorphic between human males and females, including the size and shape of the brow ridge, the size of the ocular orbit, size and shape of the jaw and chin, shape of lips, ratio of shoulder width to hip width, size of hands and feet, and overall height and weight. Each of these characteristics is bimodal, not binary. Some of them have a significant amount of overlap in the distributions by sex cohort, others have considerably less overlap. For example, thereās a fair bit of overlap in height. While there are different means for males and females, itās quite common to find males who fall well into the first standard deviation for females, and likewise to find females who fall into the low side of the first deviation for males. On the other hand, thereās considerably less overlap in foot size. While it is true that some females have very large feet, those fall outside of the second sd for female foot size, and within the lower end of the second sd for male foot size. The same is true in reverse.
The social construct of gender, as it applies to stereotypical expectations of behavior, comportment, interests, and mannerism are, of course, dimorphic only to the extent that society enforces those roles.
I fully support demolishing social gender roles and expectations. But biological sex is a reality, and itās one that has a significant impact on many peopleās lives. In particularly, it has a profound impact on the lives of females in developing countries and countries with very rigid and sexist laws.
1 Like
Actual biologists disagree with you. You can cling to your outdated views all you want, but you canāt erase the fact there is no scientific way to separate 100% of humanity into 2 sexes. Sex is an ill-defined concept.
Whatās more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body
What the hell? Thatās kind of weird.
Iām gonna ask my daughter about this. Sheās got a masters in genetic counselling, sheāll likely have heard of this.
Having read nothing but that quoteā¦
That actually makes more sense to me than binary male/female with a small percentage of, letās say outliers since I canāt think of anything better at the moment.
That would probably explain ME more to find out that Iām a patchwork.
Iāve read that a lot of motherās have some stray cells from their children lodged here and there. I even read a weird case of a woman whose earlobe was damaged, and after it healed, it was genetically male, because the cells that reproduced to replace the damage had originated in one of her sons.
Also, that a lot of āautoimmuneā disease in women is actually a reaction to their childrenās cells, not cells of their own genome.
Well, there are two sexes. But many actual humans donāt fit neatly into either, biologically or otherwise.
The same is true for members of other species that are dioecious.
(I guess that word is usually used for plantsā¦)
ok, this works neatly,.. letās see if this works for people.
so as I take the discussion there are two sexes just like there are three primary colors.
however almost all the colors we see are not pure and somewhere on the spectrum, a mix of the primaries.
hence the rainbow
As soon as someone can find a third gamete, Iāll change my mind. Until then, see the information regarding primary, secondary, and tertiary sex characteristics.
Donāt conflate sex with sex-based characteristics.
Soā¦ you are saying that children, castrati, and menopausal women are neither male nor female?
Yes, there are two sexes at the gamete level. But when you start talking about people, or dogs, or fish, or daylilies, it gets more complicated.
And, the notion of āsexā means something different at the level of an organism. Thatās why most of us think that menopausal women are still female.
1 Like
I think we have to distinguish between sex being āill definedā as MH put it, and sex not being real.
There is the phenomenon of sex differentiation. It happens at many different levels of our being. For most of us, those levels are coordinated with each other. Not for all of us. For example, those of us with complete androgen insensitivity are in some sense male on the level of genetic organization, but female on other levels.
Itās hard to come up with a theoretical definition of sex that fully encompasses the phenomenon of sexual differentiation. So in that sense, sex is not well defined. But Iām not sure we can completely define any scientific phenomena under that strict a standard. By a less severe standard, sexual differentiation does not seem like it is only an arbitrary creation by us as the scientists. It is as real as other other scientific concept.
I think what some people try to do is first theoretically define sex, say by a set of genes or organs. Then classify us under one of these two categories. And then say that these categories are part of our essential natures. So somebody with XY genes and a penis is a man, and therefore much more radically different from a woman than from another man (classified in this way). Itās basis in scientific, theoretical definitions of sex can make it seem more likely to be true. But in fact, biologyās more nuanced view of sex seems to refute this kind of view, not support it.
Will this prevent their colleges from taking federal funds somehow, I wonder?
That is very disappointing.
I think the conservative christians really could have gone a different way with the transgender folks. Iran for example evidently provides at least some support for and acceptance of transwomen.
It is no longer surprising to me just how bad Christians are at following the teachings of Christ.
1 Like
Is this question mean literally, as in will society have some destructive reaction?
Or is it supposed to wonder whether transwomen should participate in sports. Is this is so, then I think this is a very damaging statement.
The serious question is: will including transwomen in sports make female athletes more likely to get hurt?
Your question isnāt a really question at all. The answer is already baked into the question, like asking whether people know whether i bear my wife.
By doing this you have taken a legitimate question that should be part of the dialogue of deciding how to include transwomen in our society, and turned it into a tribal symbol devoid of any real meaning. Instead of furthering dialogue, statements like this destroy it by transmuting it into propaganda.
The stakes arenāt quite low here, of course, since our dialogue will not have any real consequences for anyone. But unfortunately questions like this bleed into the real world.
1 Like
I donāt think this poster is here in good faith.
Theyāll put in some regs about wearing safety equipment?
Banning transgender from Universities (and I have to assume state schools only) is ironic as they may play against other teams who could have transgender. women.
I would assume they would just forfeit. Then again, if I was a female transgender athlete, MS would be my 50th choice of state where I would go to college