I am looking forward to seeing how this collides with college athletics.
Since gender is not binary, doesn't title IX entitle self-identified gender neutral athletes to the exact same amount of money/scholarships allocated (not proportional in any way, but total money) as there is allocated to either male or female athletics?
Maybe a letter to the Minnesota congresswoman about that longstanding discriminatory practice at the University of Minnesota is in order.
I am sympathetic as well. They have a mental illness.
[The following is not directed at you, but for people who don't see that they have a mental illness]
Imagine someone with anorexia. Let's say they are 20 years old, 5'5 and 80 pounds.
Let's say they tell you or a doctor or a psychologist that they consider themselves fat, and need to lose 20 pounds.
Would it be a good idea or a bad idea to indulge in their delusion/mental illness? The answer is obvious: of course it would be a bad idea.
However, the opposite is true with regards to trans people. It is politically correct/fashionable/you are a "caring person" if you indulge their delusion/mental illness. And you are considered a monster if you tell them that 2+2=4 (so to speak).
America has gone mad.
Really well said, Michael.
Bonus points for proper use of the oft-butchered "intents and purposes" phrase.
Relevant, disturbing, somewhat depressing:
When the studies are brought out that show that M2F transgender people have no athletic advantage over congenital women, things like this video need to be kept in mind, along with my comments on the nature of studies here: https://startingstrength.com/resourc...ml#post1725304. And those comments on the need for a skeptical look at the studies were on exercise science, which is generally lacking some kind of super widespread cultural and political bias. Imagine the compounding effect when there is clearly a strong agenda to push a certain point of view.
Highly relevant:
Sokal 2.0 as Ideological Turing Test - Econlib
and
What the New Sokal Hoax Reveals About Academia - The Atlantic
Last edited by Michael Wolf; 02-06-2019 at 06:16 PM.
This is reasonable, but what's the principle behind dividing birth sexes, but not PED users (like some feds), and (I assume) trusting participants on the "congenital" status of sex? Just that it addresses the vast majority of differences that show up and matter?
Relatedly, RPS fed (Gene Rychlak's org) where I've done several meets was going to let trans people compete as untested "pro" men/women but Gene got apparent Facebook death threats over it. A day or so later, they're going to set up "trans" categories on top of tested/untested and narrow age classes, etc. As an old guy who can't pass a drug test these days, I'd welcome trans men in my category, so I guess the women on PEDs are the ones most upset.
PEDs cannot make up for the in utero effects of testosterone responsible for the congenital differences between males and females. Women can take all the PEDs they want, but the neuromuscular efficiency differences between congenital men and women, measured best by the SVJ, cannot be mitigated by the subsequent use of androgens.