VICTORY!!! LPGA to change policy on ‘female at birth’

[The-Joker]

?



Of course it's not fair. It's also not fair to functionally say that transgendered people aren't allowed to participate at all because they don't fit into a tranditional sex category.

We're dealing in a world of second best options. Choosing one second best over another is a necessary cost that is unfair to someone no matter what. It is not "one of the worst arguments ever made in the history of intelligent civilizations." Your failure to understand that, and your apparent default assumption that if we have to be unfair we should be unfair to the transgendered community, are indicators that your supposed increased understanding is not as great as you think.

 

[Archie Moses]

Of course it's not fair. It's also not fair to functionally say that transgendered people aren't allowed to participate at all because they don't fit into a tranditional sex category.

We're dealing in a world of second best options. Choosing one second best over another is a necessary cost that is unfair to someone no matter what. It is not "one of the worst arguments ever made in the history of intelligent civilizations." Your failure to understand that, and your apparent default assumption that if we have to be unfair we should be unfair to the transgendered community, are indicators that your supposed increased understanding is not as great as you think.

Sometimes life isn't fair, kicky. To me, it's more unfair to biologically born women that a person biologically born a man, is allowed to participate in a sport with women. (There are clear unfair advantages to the person born a man.)

Trust me, you're the one with "failure to understand" stuff. Sometimes rules can't be bent, kicky.

Edit: It's one of the major flaws I see we have in society nowadays. We have the "I'm entitled to whatever I want, regardless of the situation" mentality.

"I can do what ever I want, whenever I want, and there should never be any problems or consequences." Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

 

[sirkickyass]

Sometimes life isn't fair, kicky. To me, it's more unfair to biologically born women that a person biologically born a man, is allowed to participate in a sport with women. (There are clear unfair advantages to the person born a man.)

Ok. That's "to you" the balance that you would strike. But it's unfair no matter how it shakes down. That does not make the opposing argument that it is more unfair to exclude someone on the basis of their transgender status, after they have already made every possible biological accomodation, "one of the worst arguments ever made in the history of intelligent civilizations."

Trust me, you're the one with "failure to understand" stuff. Sometimes rules can't be bent, kicky.

What "rule" are you talking about here Archie? The rule that a man is a man and a woman is a woman? I can see your views have really changed. Totally past gender binaries. I'm so proud of how much you've grown.

 

[Archie Moses]

Kicky, please answer the question.

Would you ever date a woman born a man? Why or why not?

 

[Archie Moses]

What "rule" are you talking about here Archie? The rule that a man is a man and a woman is a woman? I can see your views have really changed. Totally past gender binaries. I'm so proud of how much you've grown.

She's legally a woman, but was biologically born a man. I don't see why people have problems with that? It has nothing to do with my views. It has to do with common sense.

 

[Archie Moses]

Also, it is unfair she can't golf with women, because she's legally a woman. I get that. But it's more unfair to the women born as women who don't have the biologically edge of being born a man. Utilitarianism. One person should be left unhappy, not an entire group that has to bend rules.

 

[Archie Moses]

Kicky, please answer the question.

Would you ever date a woman born a man? Why or why not?

Cat's got your tongue on this one. I can't wait for your honest answer.

 

[Bronco70]

I say let them compete and see if this "competitive advantage" shows through.

I'm guessing it won't.

But if, all of a sudden, a transgendered player starts dominating, then this becomes a more crucial discussion.

 

[Archie Moses]

I say let them compete and see if this "competitive advantage" shows through.

I'm guessing it won't.

But if, all of a sudden, a transgendered player starts dominating, then this becomes a more crucial discussion.

She won a long drive competition at age 57 and is an ex-cop. There's a reason they made the LGPA in the first place and it's because women can't compete with guys in the sport.

 

[Bronco70]

Winning a long drive competition is not that significant, IMO. Being an ex cop is irrelevant, no? Again, if the player steps in and dominates, I'm guessing some reevaluation would occur. But until then, it's all academic.

 

[sirkickyass]

Kicky, please answer the question.

Would you ever date a woman born a man? Why or why not?

Cat's got your tongue on this one. I can't wait for your honest answer.

Wow you waited 10 whole minutes while I was writing another post on a different topic before you declared victory on that I was not able to answer the question. Obviously you're being totally reasonable here. Full disclosure: my response is going to be even later because I spent more time than typing out one-sentence replies.

The honest answer is, as with all people, "it depends." There's a strong likelihood that such a person would bring a lot of baggage to the relationship in the form of family reaction, identity issues, and given my age and the age of likely reasonably compatible people, a recent major surgery. I might decline based on generally not wanting to deal with attendant baggage. But if those factors were not present and I actually liked the person I don't think it would stop me. And I'm pretty sure my family would be ok with it too.

The other answer is, your question is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether or not transgendered persons should be able to play sports.

She's legally a woman, but was biologically born a man. I don't see why people have problems with that? It has nothing to do with my views. It has to do with common sense.

Non-responsive. The entire point is that we're dealing with second-best solutions. Choosing one over the other does make someone who disagrees with you and advocate of "one of the worst arguments ever made in the history of intelligent civilizations." Your belief that's the case displays your true feelings on the matter, despite your attempts to act like you're sensitive.

Your continued attempt to frame this as a "rule" that can't be broken indicates you're still stuck in view of gender that is binary. That is exactly the conversation we had over a year ago. It's clear you've gained no new understanding since that period of time.

Also, it is unfair she can't golf with women, because she's legally a woman. I get that. But it's more unfair to the women born as women who don't have the biologically edge of being born a man. Utilitarianism. One person should be left unhappy, not an entire group that has to bend rules.

That's a child's view of utilitarianism Archie. First, in your purely quantitative view you've essentially denied all other actual or potential MTF transsexual golfers even exist. That's the only way you can get to your "one vs. all" decision rule.

Second, you've given zero weight to the degree and type of unfairness. This matters significantly because the way in which a rule disallowing MTF transsexuals from playing is NOT THE SAME as the way in which the alternative rule is unfair. Disallowing players from competing takes away their ability to even participate, it is a total exclusion. Allowing players to participate that may have certain biological advantages (depending on the exact biochemistry and development history of the person) is potentially competitively disadvantageous to the people who participate in the sport, but does not outright exclude them from participation. You've clearly not thought about this at all because you are viewing the problem purely quantitatively but there is a legitimate difference between total exclusion and competitive disadvantage.

Third, there's a significant issue of precedent and how a sports organization will deal with later mixed cases. Hard lines forcing total exclusion create arbitrary distinctions in terms of who can participate because a Caster Semenya situation is essentially inevitable given enough time and a wide enough field of potential participants.

But seriously, your attempts to portray me as the one who is lacking some basic understanding of the issues involved is amusing to me. Please continue.

 

[The-Joker]

She won a long drive competition at age 57 and is an ex-cop. There's a reason they made the LGPA in the first place and it's because women can't compete with guys in the sport.

Dude!!! Don't just call it like it is... you have to cherry coat it and call it Diversity like everyone else.

 

[Archie Moses]

Next question, kicky. Why do we have to have "second best" options?

 

[sirkickyass]

But if, all of a sudden, a transgendered player starts dominating, then this becomes a more crucial discussion.

That's a fair statement. If competitive equity was completely destroyed, or if (in a very unlikely scenario) a sport came to be dominated by a group of transgendered individuals to the extent that females-at-birth were functionally precluded from participating then there's a stronger argument for exclusion or creation of a special division. I don't know if that would happen or if it has ever happened.

That's not where we are today.

 

[The-Joker]

Next question, kicky. Why do we have to have "second best" options?

I got this one.

Lets say you have 3 flavors of ice cream...

Well that just about covers it.

carry on

 

[Archie Moses]

The honest answer is, as with all people, "it depends." There's a strong likelihood that such a person would bring a lot of baggage to the relationship in the form of family reaction, identity issues, and given my age and the age of likely reasonably compatible people, a recent major surgery. I might decline based on generally not wanting to deal with attendant baggage. But if those factors were not present and I actually liked the person I don't think it would stop me. And I'm pretty sure my family would be ok with it too.

Way to dodge the question guy. It's a yes or a no answer. I get out of it that you would date a transgendered person. That's cool. I have no problems. Would I? No. Why? Because they are different. It's ok that they are different, but they are still different.

The other answer is, your question is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether or not transgendered persons should be able to play sports.

Um, no it's not, guy.

Non-responsive. The entire point is that we're dealing with second-best solutions. Choosing one over the other does make someone who disagrees with you and advocate of "one of the worst arguments ever made in the history of intelligent civilizations." Your belief that's the case displays your true feelings on the matter, despite your attempts to act like you're sensitive.

Why do we need to always accommodate people who want to do what they want to do when they want to regardless of the situations?

Your continued attempt to frame this as a "rule" that can't be broken indicates you're still stuck in view of gender that is binary. That is exactly the conversation we had over a year ago. It's clear you've gained no new understanding since that period of time.

I'm not stuck on the gender part, guy. I'm stuck on the biological part. If I decided I wanted to call myself a cow, it would not make me a cow, even if society decided they would go with it and call me a cow. (That's just an example that comes to mind, guy.)

That's a child's view of utilitarianism Archie. First, in your purely quantitative view you've essentially denied all other actual or potential MTF transsexual golfers even exist. That's the only way you can get to your "one vs. all" decision rule.

Child's view? Which child's view? You when you were 5? Child, please.

Second, you've given zero weight to the degree and type of unfairness.

Wrong.

This matters significantly because the way in which a rule disallowing MTF transsexuals from playing is NOT THE SAME as the way in which the alternative rule is unfair. Disallowing players from competing takes away their ability to even participate, it is a total exclusion.

The LGPA made it a exclusion event, not me. They are the ones that made it the LGPA, guy.

Allowing players to participate that may have certain biological advantages (depending on the exact biochemistry and development history of the person) is potentially competitively disadvantageous to the people who participate in the sport, but does not outright exclude them from participation.

According to who? You?

You've clearly not thought about this at all because you are viewing the problem purely quantitatively but there is a legitimate difference between total exclusion and competitive disadvantage.

I've clearly used common sense, guy.

But seriously, your attempts to portray me as the one who is lacking some basic understanding of the issues involved is amusing to me. Please continue.

Wait, I "lack the basic understanding?" Says the lawyer. You can't be serious. I gotta ask. Are you?

 

[Archie Moses]

Winning a long drive competition is not that significant, IMO. Being an ex cop is irrelevant, no? Again, if the player steps in and dominates, I'm guessing some reevaluation would occur. But until then, it's all academic.

Not significant? She won $250,000 dollars. How would you feel if you took second?

 

[Bronco70]

Not significant? She won $250,000 dollars. How would you feel if you took second?

Arch, slow it down a second. I assumed that you would be able to view my reply in it's proper context, but you did not.

We weren't discussing the long drive contest specifically, as I understood it. I thought we were discussing this golfer's status in the LPGA. Therefore, I assumed - wrongly, I guess - that you were referencing that LDC as an example of competitive advantage. I had no idea you were talking solely about the paycheck for winning said contest. For this I have no response, because I do not care.

However, if we had been following the trail of thought that I was on, I would explain that, of all sports, golf is probably the one in which being born male offers the least advantage. Golf is much more about skill and strategy than strength. But you are probably not interested in that anyway.

 

[Archie Moses]

Arch, slow it down a second. I assumed that you would be able to view my reply in it's proper context, but you did not.

We weren't discussing the long drive contest specifically, as I understood it. I thought we were discussing this golfer's status in the LPGA. Therefore, I assumed - wrongly, I guess - that you were referencing that LDC as an example of competitive advantage. I had no idea you were talking solely about the paycheck for winning said contest. For this I have no response, because I do not care.

However, if we had been following the trail of thought that I was on, I would explain that, of all sports, golf is probably the one in which being born male offers the least advantage. Golf is much more about skill and strategy than strength. But you are probably not interested in that anyway.

Fair enough, but I don't see why you're telling me to "slow down" and "I wouldn't be interested". I'm up for discussing it.

 

[freakazoid]

Kicky, please answer the question.

Would you ever date a woman born a man? Why or why not?

Sounds like somebody has a crush?



This explains Mamacita Moses.