Excellent summary as usual, but the framing of the issue is still a massive problem.
The issue is not whether some men, any men, could ever compete fairly with women.
The issue is whether women can associate with each other freely in sports without male presence, any male presence.
The “fairness” question is a red herring.
The purpose of demands for male inclusion is not to compete with women, it is quite different, incidental almost.
The purpose is to 1) avoid competition with men; 2) have access to, touch, see, and engage with women’s bodies without permission for sexual gratification and to 3) affirm to themselves and others their mimicry of females is not false; 4) lastly, mimic victory in a sport.
Discussing this from the perspective of the man mimicking women (trans), is to fail to start from the perspective of who women wish to participate with in sports.
You cannot allow some men, and not others to participate, in interests of fairness. You cannot say “this man is so weak”, that he has failed sports qualifications so thoroughly that he can compete, since any man can fail any qualification effortlessly. It excludes no men.
Sports is about being the best among peers, finding superiority in physical being, striving to achieve.
It is antithetical to sports to strive to be the worst to be included by failure.
The conversation has to orient to women’s needs, perspectives; to women’s autonomy in association.
If women’s sports is not about women; then what is it about, exactly?
Excellent comment, especially the part about qualifying on the grounds of weakness being antithetical to the very concept of athletic competition. Bizzaro.
However, I disagree that the fairness issue is a red herring. Just ask the women who have been denied their rightful place on the podium, or who have to change clothes in the janitor's closet. Unfair. Very unfair.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s existentially unfair to women. It’s not that it’s athletically unfair (ability) - that’s a red herring. It’s unfair without any concept of athletic ability in the sense that women are unfairly denied the autonomy to define whom they with to associate with athletically. Fairness based on congruent athletic ability is not the actual issue though it is proposed that, if men were sufficiently disabled, then it would be fair. No.
I withdraw my objection. Your observation is more fundamental. The principle of individual rights and voluntary association should prevail. If women want to compete only against other biological women that should be the end of it. The fact that they are saying "no" to the trans-women should be enough for them to walk away.
A lot of people don't understand, or want to recognize, that when a law lets one kind of man into women's spaces, all men have the same access. If "self identification" of sex is part of the law then all men officially are given access to all spaces designated for girls and women.
The leftists have become strangely unable to acknowledge that girls and women, boys and men, have always wanted to segregate themselves at times into separate spaces, clubs, lodges and sports. One of the sex differences in behavior that has been found to hold true cross culturally is that girls and boys form separate play groups with differing play styles from early childhood on into adulthood. But that is another one of those basically biological realities that leftists can't deal with.
I just clicked on your links and am most interested in reading your work! I am in the midst of a home remodel, but will respond this week after I've read the pieces you linked. Thank you!
I doubt any of you will come back now to see this but… I think I understand the red herring comment from looking at your posts and your essays. I see your point and I think I still disagree with it. I’m thinking of it like this…
In public life we need to have clear intentions for categories to establish exclusion and inclusion criteria. The question is, what is the intention of female sports? I think female sports are for women and girls to get the benefits in leadership, achievement, and other qualities that sports help build. I think it’s training for life and it establishes skills for survival. It’s a game to train for the fight for life that all animals face. If girls and women competed with boys and men all the time anyone watching would naturally see two groups worthy of honor and recognition form within the sets of participants. Humans would instinctively recognize the two groups until they would form into two separate categories organically. The word I think they would use for why the two groups were right and necessary would be fairness. Fairness describes the notion that two clear categories exist and both deserve separate recognition and honor.
The problem you are noticing is the reason men want to compete in women’s sports isn’t about playing a game that strengthens their survival fitness. In fact, transition treatments make men and women less healthy. Reproductive fitness is a useful measure of health for all animals and transition destroys reproductive health. It’s a fundamentally demonic act. So the red herring observation, I think, speaks to the fact that the trans women aren’t even playing the same game as the rest of the players.
They want to dominate women in a way which they will always win and without other men competing.
Thats why women’s sports exists - so men can’t dominate women, but women can carve out and realize their own arena, their own competition, and their own success without the need to fit inside a male world.
I get it. I have made bigger goofs myself. I write for the Courage Coalition and think you have one of the best substack out there. I still refer to your ones on the Olympics last summer in debates.
> In reality, the evidence shows that meaningful performance differences between boys and girls exist even before puberty begins.
The problem with this line of evidence is that it validates the notion that, were it possible to chemically erase the difference, that their would be no further reason to segregate athletes by sex. This is bad thinking. The sexes should be segregated for half a dozen reasons and even if some male could 'prove' that his regimen of drugs and surgery had eliminated his advantage, he would still be a male and agonizing over these edge cases is counter productive. It's simple: men compete against men and women against women. In things like marathon there is no reason they can't run together -- where's the problem? -- but men's and women's record keeping must still be separate. Somehow society has become obsessed with the 'needs' of mentally disturbed people to the point that normalcy has been cancelled. Normalcy matters.
As well, we know the rate of detransition in a two year time frame is 30% and higher as time post medicalization goes by. Why would we pressure parents of boys to thrust them into early puberty blocking and wrong sex hormones? It's coming out that testosterone in females and estrogen in males results in urinary problems, meaning incontinence.
I notice that the post-puberty male advantage continues to grow well into the later years. It even makes a big jump up in the 85-90 category. What explains this? From age 50 on athletic ability declines for both sexes. Are we to gather from the graph that a woman's athletic ability declines more than a man's?
Doping is illegal in sports and even results in lifetime bans in some cases. Isn't testosterone suppression a kind of reverse doping? It is an artificial chemical treatment designed to qualify an athlete for a competition. Isn't this already illegal?
Excellent summary as usual, but the framing of the issue is still a massive problem.
The issue is not whether some men, any men, could ever compete fairly with women.
The issue is whether women can associate with each other freely in sports without male presence, any male presence.
The “fairness” question is a red herring.
The purpose of demands for male inclusion is not to compete with women, it is quite different, incidental almost.
The purpose is to 1) avoid competition with men; 2) have access to, touch, see, and engage with women’s bodies without permission for sexual gratification and to 3) affirm to themselves and others their mimicry of females is not false; 4) lastly, mimic victory in a sport.
Discussing this from the perspective of the man mimicking women (trans), is to fail to start from the perspective of who women wish to participate with in sports.
You cannot allow some men, and not others to participate, in interests of fairness. You cannot say “this man is so weak”, that he has failed sports qualifications so thoroughly that he can compete, since any man can fail any qualification effortlessly. It excludes no men.
Sports is about being the best among peers, finding superiority in physical being, striving to achieve.
It is antithetical to sports to strive to be the worst to be included by failure.
The conversation has to orient to women’s needs, perspectives; to women’s autonomy in association.
If women’s sports is not about women; then what is it about, exactly?
On men evading men:
https://open.substack.com/pub/sufeitzy/p/mimesexuality-3-scutum-mimesis?r=o79yv&utm_medium=ios
On men demanding free access to women:
https://open.substack.com/pub/sufeitzy/p/mimesexuality-5-accessus-liber?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Excellent comment, especially the part about qualifying on the grounds of weakness being antithetical to the very concept of athletic competition. Bizzaro.
However, I disagree that the fairness issue is a red herring. Just ask the women who have been denied their rightful place on the podium, or who have to change clothes in the janitor's closet. Unfair. Very unfair.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s existentially unfair to women. It’s not that it’s athletically unfair (ability) - that’s a red herring. It’s unfair without any concept of athletic ability in the sense that women are unfairly denied the autonomy to define whom they with to associate with athletically. Fairness based on congruent athletic ability is not the actual issue though it is proposed that, if men were sufficiently disabled, then it would be fair. No.
I withdraw my objection. Your observation is more fundamental. The principle of individual rights and voluntary association should prevail. If women want to compete only against other biological women that should be the end of it. The fact that they are saying "no" to the trans-women should be enough for them to walk away.
You are correct .. it's not about athletic 'fairness'.
I don't care if a man has no thumbs and is missing his left foot, he should not be allowed to compete against women because he is NOT a woman.
Thank you for the great post, Sufeitzy!
A lot of people don't understand, or want to recognize, that when a law lets one kind of man into women's spaces, all men have the same access. If "self identification" of sex is part of the law then all men officially are given access to all spaces designated for girls and women.
The leftists have become strangely unable to acknowledge that girls and women, boys and men, have always wanted to segregate themselves at times into separate spaces, clubs, lodges and sports. One of the sex differences in behavior that has been found to hold true cross culturally is that girls and boys form separate play groups with differing play styles from early childhood on into adulthood. But that is another one of those basically biological realities that leftists can't deal with.
I don’t know if you’ve seen my essay series, id love your feedback.
I just clicked on your links and am most interested in reading your work! I am in the midst of a home remodel, but will respond this week after I've read the pieces you linked. Thank you!
I trust your opinion, but I’ve been through the rigamarole you’re in. Good luck!
I doubt any of you will come back now to see this but… I think I understand the red herring comment from looking at your posts and your essays. I see your point and I think I still disagree with it. I’m thinking of it like this…
In public life we need to have clear intentions for categories to establish exclusion and inclusion criteria. The question is, what is the intention of female sports? I think female sports are for women and girls to get the benefits in leadership, achievement, and other qualities that sports help build. I think it’s training for life and it establishes skills for survival. It’s a game to train for the fight for life that all animals face. If girls and women competed with boys and men all the time anyone watching would naturally see two groups worthy of honor and recognition form within the sets of participants. Humans would instinctively recognize the two groups until they would form into two separate categories organically. The word I think they would use for why the two groups were right and necessary would be fairness. Fairness describes the notion that two clear categories exist and both deserve separate recognition and honor.
The problem you are noticing is the reason men want to compete in women’s sports isn’t about playing a game that strengthens their survival fitness. In fact, transition treatments make men and women less healthy. Reproductive fitness is a useful measure of health for all animals and transition destroys reproductive health. It’s a fundamentally demonic act. So the red herring observation, I think, speaks to the fact that the trans women aren’t even playing the same game as the rest of the players.
That’s the key part your last line.
They aren’t even playing the same game.
They want to dominate women in a way which they will always win and without other men competing.
Thats why women’s sports exists - so men can’t dominate women, but women can carve out and realize their own arena, their own competition, and their own success without the need to fit inside a male world.
Great post. This is one of those cases where the evidence piles as high as Mt. Everest but quasi-religious ideology blinds people to obvious facts.
Science verifies what our eyes have told us all along. If only the Democrats would now keep theirs open and admit this truth!
The paper is in the Journal of Applied Physiology, not "Exercise and Sports Sciences Reviews," as stated in your essay.
Oops, thanks for catching that!
Colin, Trump is no longer former president. Check your work!
Well that's embarrassing! But I guess in a way he is the current AND former president. 😆
I get it. I have made bigger goofs myself. I write for the Courage Coalition and think you have one of the best substack out there. I still refer to your ones on the Olympics last summer in debates.
> In reality, the evidence shows that meaningful performance differences between boys and girls exist even before puberty begins.
The problem with this line of evidence is that it validates the notion that, were it possible to chemically erase the difference, that their would be no further reason to segregate athletes by sex. This is bad thinking. The sexes should be segregated for half a dozen reasons and even if some male could 'prove' that his regimen of drugs and surgery had eliminated his advantage, he would still be a male and agonizing over these edge cases is counter productive. It's simple: men compete against men and women against women. In things like marathon there is no reason they can't run together -- where's the problem? -- but men's and women's record keeping must still be separate. Somehow society has become obsessed with the 'needs' of mentally disturbed people to the point that normalcy has been cancelled. Normalcy matters.
As well, we know the rate of detransition in a two year time frame is 30% and higher as time post medicalization goes by. Why would we pressure parents of boys to thrust them into early puberty blocking and wrong sex hormones? It's coming out that testosterone in females and estrogen in males results in urinary problems, meaning incontinence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGuQpt-i6O4
Two questions:
I notice that the post-puberty male advantage continues to grow well into the later years. It even makes a big jump up in the 85-90 category. What explains this? From age 50 on athletic ability declines for both sexes. Are we to gather from the graph that a woman's athletic ability declines more than a man's?
Doping is illegal in sports and even results in lifetime bans in some cases. Isn't testosterone suppression a kind of reverse doping? It is an artificial chemical treatment designed to qualify an athlete for a competition. Isn't this already illegal?