You've called me out for supposedly trolling or strawmanning but here's the post you were replying to:

My post before that:

And from that you read that I'm arguing that some heretofore unknown technology in the future should be able to compete against unassisted athletes?

I think you're reading in the answers that would corner me here, not my actual answers.

I can't you a simple answer to a question like how future technology will be integrated into sport. I said a very direct no, I don't think it will be likely to be pitted against unassisted athletes very much. Even that will probably happen a bit early on. Remember Kasparov vs. Deep Blue? And now they have tournaments where chess engines compete against each other.

But I gave you an example of a huge sport, here and now, in Formula 1. F1 is a sport where, yes, the driver matters a lot, but if you don't have one of the best cars then you don't win. The whole sport is based on teams trying to give their driver a competitive advantage by improving their technology. It's still a sport, it's a popular sport, and it will be for some time to come. That's why I caveated my "No" with a "but", because it's just not immediately obvious to me that there won't be future sports and divisions where the kind of technology you're talking about will be integrated. It's just not that simple.

You dismissed all that context as me just trolling and saying future events will be unaided athletes vs. cyborgs or something bizarre. That's not me trolling or being evasive, that's just you not engaging.

So like I said before, I think it's best if we leave this here and if other people also think I'm trolling here then I guess I'll have to apologise for being unclear or having a terrible position.

I've seen nothing even slightly resembling trolling from you. Cuepee tends to get a little, um, engaged with some topics, and for some reason he's really, really, really, really engaged with this one.

Right. So to highlight the ridiculous of your view:.

Participant 1 and Participant 2 are two Cis Males who grow up together playing sports against one another.


Participant 1 & 2 : enter a track meet where they know a scholarship to a Uni is on the line for the top participant


Participant 1 comes in 4th and Participant 2 comes in 5th.

Participant 2 however identified as Gender fluid a year earlier based on their personal journey and identifies the next weekend as a female and enters the womans event where she comes in first and gets the scholarship.


Participant 2 has never taken a drug to transition nor done any surgery.


You say this is how we make things fair. Participant 1 denied the same ability to compete for that scholarship (which IS discrimination) and no cis female able to have a level playing field to win that scholarship. That is your idea of fairness.

Why? Because of the one refrain you always come back to. If denied the trans person may get depressed and kill themselves, therefore they must be accommodated.


No sorry, people get depressed for all sorts of reasons including just missing out on a scholarship. That is not a reason to basically just change the rules to accommodate them so they can have one.

Your view is ridiculous.

You also are making no sense.

Again the technology for the blades is improving NOW. It is a not a future thing. They are looking at better, faster composite materials NOW as they do in all sports. Tennis rackets, golf clubs, all them keep reducing the weight while increasing the strength.

So again your argument is 'they should be included now' (I assume that is because they are competitive but not winning every race) but when that technology gets better they should get their own division, like Nascar.

You are a hypocrite within your own view.

Bobo I call him a troll as I cannot believe he is this dumb. The engineering team who designed those blades is examining them, testing the results and trying to improve them constantly.

If I am in a foot race and one of the keys to me moving from 5th place to first place is my engineering team focusing on improving my blades that is unfair advantage.

You don't have to wait until the tech gets so good that an able bodied person can no longer compete. That is recognizable NOW.

it is pure madness that this call to accommodate, means we must deny reality. Certain things are unfair and are not a fair playing field regardless.

I really do want to get out now if you're just calling me dumb and dishonest, but it's worth pointing out that just because tech might improve also doesn't mean we couldn't just have regulations about what can and can't be used in the same exact way we do for all sorts of sporting equipment. For example, when I fought traditional Kumite, no gloves were allowed. When it was points fighting, light gloves were allowed. When I fought continuous, "light" contact, it was 10oz gloves. When I fought "semi-contact" it was 14oz gloves. The different gloves do in fact give you advantage/disadvantages, but that doesn't mean gloves are out altogether. Equally, if there are some standards for blades that made them equal, that wouldn't be impacted by the existence of some other better blades.

And, again, to be very clear, maybe there isn't a way to integrate blades fairly. I am more than open to that scenario. All I'm saying is that it's a matter for data and hard research and NOT for mere appeals to our intuition about fairness. And, in the real world, we DID decide it based on the data, and we DID try our best to be inclusive. All I've said is that that kind of inclusivity is also an ideal, even if it conflicts with other ideals, even if you think another ideal should take precedence.

So again, let's leave it to the room to see if anyone else thinks I'm just being dumb.

Edit: And, of course, remembering I've pointed you to a huge sport where moving up the rankings by creating better technology is literally the major determining factor. So there's a real world example on the table of how your appeal to an ideal doesn't even encompass all sports.

Ok, which is it? You've put a lot of effort into typing out how similar the two participants are, which is crucial to your argument that they are treated the same. But they aren't the same. One is a cis man, one is gender fluid. So when you deny the ability to participate in sport consistent with their gender, that applies to only one of those two people, and the types of experiences and perceptions of those experiences are going to be different. Indeed, there isn't some huge upswell of advocacy from cis males I've ever heard of who even want to join the female teams, despite this clearly being a thing for a trans people. So they are different.

But let me ask: which of the following does your scenario rely on. As in, do you need all of these in order to think your scenario is persuasive:

• Gender Fluid. That is, does the argument work for trans people only?
• For a scholarship. As in, if the stakes aren't so high, do you still oppose?
• No hormone suppression or surgery. Is there any threshold where you think ok now they could compete?

My view has been that there are many competing values here, and depending on the exact context different values may end up dominating. For example, I don't think we should deny a young trans girl playing on the local school baseball team. However, as the stakes rise, say the Olympics, then the context changes and I for instance I agree the hormone-surpression at minimum are necessary. What you've done in this example is layer on several issues. First you put a lot of rhetorical emphasis on the gender fluid part how one weekend they are both cis males, apparently, and the next they change, and I'm not sure why you think this is relevant other than casting it as flippant. Then you give it some high stakes of a scholarship but insist there is no hormone suppression. Well fine, but it sounds like you really just want to build out a specific context where it sounds bad enough. But this approach can simply never defeat my viewpoint, as mine is built on the consequentialist idea of different contexts taking different approaches.

Instead, what I suggest is we strip away all these extras and try to find common ground at the lowest level. Imagine a low-stakes sporting event like a local schools's baseball team for say a 14 year old trans girl. They just want to be part of the team, to feel included and welcome and safe. Do your arguments work here to deny this girl?


Right. Are you not worried about the relatively high rates of suicide among trans youth? This is just one stark measure among many, but certainly the negative experiences of many trans youth is a motivating factor for trying to have them feel included in sport, which I think is highly valuable.

I am torn. I like that I make a little money when my OPs generate posts. On the other hand it annoys me that people don't realize that there is no need for any posts once that OP is written. This thread is a perfect example. Which feeling takes precedence depends, I guess, on which side of the bed I wake up that morning.

I didn't read most of your exchange, but this was my central point as well. I was calling it competing values, but that's the same thing. Depending on the exact context, the various values might be weighted differently which is why I might have a different answer for a youth baseball team and the Olympics, but the point is to step away from seeing "level playing field" as the only value to consider, and to be applied in a binary way.

But what you seem incapable of comprehending, is that you, yes YOU are telling these Blade Runners who are currently in court fighting to be included that 'No, I would see you guys have your own special division (similar to Nascar)" or "I would just create rules limiting you".


But on the Trans debate you take the opposite view. No special division. No special accommodation.

I am always astounded when someone cannot see the hypocrisy, lack of logic and sorry, dumbness, that is inherent to such flawed logic application as you create such arbitrary and 'you centric' rules that would require everyone agree when that would never happen.

The logic answer, the smart answer is either 'No competitive sport' for females just make it all 'participation' centric OR some hard and fast rules such as a separate division or rules such as 'you had to transition before puberty'.

You understand it was fair to have rules around 'different gloves' as you say that could give an unfair advantage, and yet argue against rules for 'different biology' unwilling to accept it could give an unfair advantage.

It is not because we do not agree that i call your arguments dumb, it is because you have such a blaring inconsistency in your own arguments an you seem incapable of seeing it.

Do you not think people who lose use of their physical body (paralysis, amputee) have higher rates of suicide? Why do you not care about that?

They are the same save one difference.

Their biology is exactly the same. Their competition levels are the same.

Save one aspect. One of them identifies as gender fluid, but takes no drugs and intends no surgery. On day 1 he is male. On day 3 he is female.


You say that sole aspect of 'self identifying' makes it fair for him (level playing field) to compete with Cis females.

You say it would not be fair (Level playing field) for the other guy to compete with Cis females.


So your argument logically is that the Playing Field is leveled by a declaration only and devoid of all the other aspects that they share.

That means you have created one singular criteria as the one that matters over all else.

You simply make no sense.

You need to switch your argument to "I just don't care about the idea of a Fair Playing Field in sport. This is more important to me' and we would have nothing to argue about. It would be the honest position. But many do not want to say that as they are invested in maintaining it is fair when it demonstrably and factually is not.

Lots being lost in the tomes here but the above is something that I think we can fairly debate and likely end up agreeing to disagree.


IMO there is no such as competitive sport, if you do not have a Fair Playing Field. It is done, destroyed.

If you can identify that any one group has an inherent advantage (technology, biology, etc) that the other does not and that no training can overcome it is pointless then to put value on who competes and gets the #1, 2 and 3 spots.

As an able bodied person it should mean nothing if I enter the Special Olympics and win a medal due to the abilities I have inherently and they do not. As an adult man it should mean nothing if I enter a race limited to 8 year olds and beat them for the gold medal.

That said 'sport', 'Recreational sport' can provide everything you guys are talking about and I would agree.

But I will never agree that person who brings inherent advantages to the table where the rest of the category simply cannot train enough to compete is 'fair competition'. It is not.

lol. My side hustle relies on advertising revenue as well, so I like generating clickbaity content as much as the next person, but I can only gaze in awe at the true master.

Are you confusing this forum for your personal blog?

You're assigning positions to me that I've never taken and then telling me I'm a troll for not seeing the problem with them.

I haven't taken a position on whether there should or should not be blades in the Olympics. I said that we should try to be inclusive if possible but if there were circumstances under which it would undermine the integrity of the sport to the point that we couldn't accommodate them then it would be okay to preserve the sport. I'm saying that whatever position we end up on in the future will be based on actual data and research and certainly won't be something we should take as immediately obvious.

I also never ever said there shouldn't be special divisions or regulations for trans people. I said that we should try to be inclusive, and I said that this is probably an area where a blanket solution wouldn't make much sense. And I said that your proposed solutions don't actually fix the problems that trans people are desperately wanting to fix, and might even introduce some weird and bad consequences that apply to cis people as well (and I grounded this in a real world, current example of an athlete).

I even went as far as to openly tell you that this is a bit of a weaselly contrarian position I had and I was willing to bit the bullet on that. I'm not saying much more than that this is a very difficult problem to solve in a way that satisfies all parties (which if you go back to my first post itt you'll find has been a consistent thing).

You also seem to miss my point again about the gloves. Some gloves are banned in some rulesets and mandatory in others. We don't blanket ban gloves because someone figured out I can punch harder in 10oz than bare-knuckle. It was a counter-example to the idea that because some tech might give an unfair advantage that that meant you must do away with it altogether. I even gave you an example of Formula 1 where, in spite of your thoughts about fairness, we have a whole sport dedicated to giving competitors the edge through technological developments. You ignore that and call me dense and a troll.

I'm pretty sure we all think the same when reading your posts. You really are not making as much sense as you think you do, so it would probably be worth backing off the insults and trying to listen better. And don't respond to me by saying how logical you have been -- I know you think that but the world you've constructed in your head just isn't the real world.

I'm surprised after all this time that you managed to so dramatically confuse my position. I've repeatedly explained it is exactly the opposite. I know you didn't respond to most of my recent post, but this argument was in that post and multiple times before that:

What is the weirdest about this, is that YOU are the one who is seemingly elevating one singular criteria above all else. I've been pretty upfront that I share this value, but I also have other values I support and the context gives a weighted balance of these values that evaluates differently in different contexts. However, you seem to be the one where "level playing field" is the singular factor you consider in every context.

I think the most productive place to continue would be for you to answer my previously posed question:

Out of curiosity, do you think a tall person brings such inherent advantages to the table in basketball?

i don't recall the name of it but the founder of a site that's basically the 2p2 of wedding planning is very transparent about the early days of the site he controlled a few dozen different accounts and he'd use them to post clickbait threads like "my bridesmaids tell me i'm too fat to wear the dress i love" "my fiance revealed to me that he's gay but still wants to get married" "my future mother in law demands I become a catholic" etc and then just sit back as people created accounts to discuss it

False.

You are open to the creation of special divisions and exclusion in examples like Blade runners if we can show the playing field is not fair.

You are not open to trans getting a special division even though we can show the playing field is not fair.

You apply inconsistent standards arbitrarily and it seems based on what you deem causes important enough.

Accept despite your words i have demonstrated that whenever EVERYTHING else is the same, you YOURSELF have said it is him being 'trans' that is the defining difference that allows him to compete and excludes the other participant from competent.

So that proves DEFINATELY that based on one criteria and one only you are deciding this.


You can say all you want you value other criteria but one by one if my other Participant has those 'OTHER' criteria you say 'sorry cannot compete as you are missing 'trans'.

You've been blatant about it saying 'he is not trans'. He can share every thing else. Be the same in every other way. But if he will not say the words 'today I identify as female' you would exclude him from participating in female sport ADMITTING it is not fair for him to compete. Not a fair playing field for the women.

If the same person says "oh i forgot to mention I am gender fluid and recognize myself as a women today" you say "oh that suddenly levels the playing field for the other women. Go ahead and compete'.


Nothing changed for the 'other women' with regards to the playing field. Whatever advantage the man had physically when he did not declare himself trans still exists when he identifies as trans.

And yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

uke and Blades i would ask you to answer this if you would. I will number the questions I want a reply to, to make it easier.


Person 1 competes as a CIS Male on Day 1 of a track meet.

on Day 2 he shows up to compete as transwomen in the same event in the woman's division.


At first she is blocked as the officials recognize her as the CiS male from the day prior. They say Males are prohibited from competing against females due to an inherent biological advantage.

Question 1 : Will you confirm you are good with that ruling at that point in time based on what the officials know?



--------

However Person 1 says quietly "I am actually a gender fluid person. I take no hormones and intend no surgery' but you will see I did fill out the required paper work to compete as female based on my gender identity at that moment in time.


Question 2 : Do you believe that whatever inhernet advantage he had and that I assume you agreed with exists in Question 1, goes away when they read he is Gender Fluid and did declare?



Question 3 - from the other women in the fields perspective does his declaration of being Gender Fluid make it more likely they can now compete and win as opposed to if he was identifying as a CIS male that day and they had to compete against him in an open category?

At this point I don't know how much more clearly I can say what my position is without you saying "No, you're position is this..,"

It's probably not a coincidence that Uke is now having the exact same problem getting his position across to you. Maybe he's trolling too.

And I'm going to say "No" to all three questions.

Cuepee, I have extensively, patiently, repeatedly, engaged with every single thought experiment you have posted. I'm getting a little frustrated that you keep ignoring - don't even bother quoting - my attempts to suggest any other circumstances where we might find common ground. Can you for once try to actually respond?

While I wait, I'll continue my extensive engagement of your example:

No, you are confusing two different issues. You have suggested Participants 1 and 2 are the same. I disagree. While by your construction they have many similarities, they also have an important difference: one is identifying as a female and one is identifying as a male. And what we know is that ones gender identity can be extremely important component of identity, that trans youth experience tremendous exclusion and adversity, for instance that they have much higher rates of suicide. So for instance, I've never heard of a cis male even wanting to compete against other women, but this is a common ask for trans females. So they are different, and we thus can't immediately conclude the should be treated the same.

This now turns to the larger framework I've identified. And I've been clear, the answer of whether they should or should not be treated different depends on context. Including a trans person is a value, and that is an important distinction here, but it is NOT a be all and end all because I value multiple factors here, including a level playing field. So as described, one one extreme (girls baseball team at the local school) I think the balance of values tilts towards inclusion, at the other (Olympics with no hormone suppression) the balance tilts towards level playing field.

The problem you have is you have said prior words that betray how you WANT to characterize things.

You understand and are good with rules around 'gloves' or 'equipment' when you say it can be demonstrated that others might be disadvantaged.

You understand and can be good with rules around 'blade' and other 'technology' if it can be demonstrated that other might be disadvantaged.

But when given the example of the Gender Fluid individual who you agree if he is identifying as a CIS male, should not be able to compete in the women's division, but if a day later that same person identifies as a transwoman, then they can compete, ...you are fine with the inherent advantage they bring to the sport that disadvantages others.


You try to pretend (and I doubt anyone believes you) that somehow the declaration 'the words' levels the playing field when in fact it makes no difference to the people being competed against. It is the same person either way to them.

So we can see you are jumping hoops to deny rather then deal with an inherent contradiction in your view and doing your best to dance around addressing it.