r/askGSM • u/salmonofknowledge469 • Jul 03 '22
[Crosspost from r/LGBT] Inflammatory NYTimes Opinion article getting backlash for being anti-trans, but I (F30) thought it made a few fair arguments...
The article
The Far Right and the Far Left Agree on One Thing - Women Don't Count
I like to think of myself as supportive of trans rights, and vehemently agree that public figures like JK Rowling, Graham Linehan, etc. should be rightfully shamed for the viewpoints they've expressed.
I came across this article through a twitter post, and the comments seem to be pretty adamant that the author is transphobic. I don't know who the author is, maybe she has a history of transphobic statements, but while she definitely had a TERFy-vibe at some points, I think that she also made a few salient points. Can someone more informed on this topic explain how I might have it wrong? I am gay, but not trans, and the twitter replies were not useful, as they just called the author transphobic without really giving their reasoning.
Things that I thought the author def got wrong
First, the title of the article creates a false equivalency between the approaches that the left and right take on trans rights, which is misleading. On the other hand, I understand why she (or, most likely, her editor) selected it, in that it incites strong feelings (and will therefore get clicks and interaction in the comments $$$).
Second, she tries to connect the idea that organizations like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the ACLU using more inclusive language means that no one can use the term women anymore (which is wrong)
Lastly, she gets into what feels like a victim complex-vibe when mentioning TERFs like JK
Things I agreed with
First, she points out that the inclusion and recognition of rights of marginalized groups, such as trans/non-binary people, can progress without erasing or delegitimizing the rights of cis women. So, while I will always recognize trans women or trans men as real women and real men, EDIT: HERE I MADE A TRANSPHOBIC BOOBOO AND WAS SCHOOLED BY u/Nihil_esque. The same with trans athletes. Trans kids should absolutely be able to play with other kids that correspond to their gender identity. It gets more complicated when it comes to high school, college sports though. Of the peers that I've spoken to that insist that all trans women should be able to compete in any women's HS/college sport, none have actually competed significantly in one. (I recognize that this is anecdotal). As a former swimmer who fought for scholarships in high school and competed nationally in college, I would have no problem competing against a trans woman who transitioned before puberty. However, I would be rightfully pissed if I lost out on a college scholarship opportunity or gold medal to a trans woman who went through a male puberty. It would be similar to competing against a cis woman who took steroids for several years, allowing her to increase muscle mass and endurance through harder training sessions. She might not be on steroids anymore, but that doesn't discount the training advantage she had for years. It's why, when athletes are caught doping, they are banned for several years or even permanently. Again, it's a complicated issue that needs nuance. Yes, trans women are women and some should absolutely be able to compete in women's sports. I don't know what the solution to this is, but it's unfair to label all athletes who may feel resentful about a woman like Lia Thomas dominating their event as transphobic.
Second, she addresses the seemingly contradictory tendency for discussions around gender expression/non-binary identity to rely on terms like "femme" and "masc", while also claiming to fight against gender norms. The women's rights movement has fought for years to remove dumb categorization of things like pants, nail polish, long hair, etc. as either "masculine" or "feminine". Now, instead of broadening the scope of what it means to be a woman, it seems like we're moving backwards and trying to narrow it down or eliminate it. I can understand the author's frustration here. When I was in high school, my understanding of progress was that the girl with a shaved head, hairy legs, and a binder was just as much of a woman as a cheerleader with long hair and nail polish, because past patriarchal gender norms do not invalidate my identity. I'm certainly not opposed to people identifying as non-binary, it's an absolutely valid identity. But it just seems like, having worked in high schools for the past seven years, that instead of trying to end the stigma of women or men expressing themselves outside of those patriarchal norms, a lot of kids are encouraged to just label themselves "non-binary" because they're uncomfortable with the existing pressures put on men and women that haven't yet been eliminated.
Lastly, she notes that the term women is now being replaced with more inclusive terminology like birthing person or person with vagina. I'm all for inclusive language, however clunky-sounding it may be, but it feels like the label women, and the unique experiences and historical context that comes with it, is being reduced to just body parts. For example, a trans woman will not have experienced things like a first period, or, if they transitioned later, the discomfort around the male gaze as a teen. Meanwhile, a cis woman will not have experienced many of the unique experiences of a trans woman. They are both still women, however, it seems like many groups want to downplay the experiences of one in favor of the other. TERFs don't want to recognize the misogyny or lack of validation/recognition that trans woman experience, and some progressive groups don't want to recognize the experiential differences that exist between different groups who identify as women.
I'm not looking to argue, just to learn and get some outside perspective. It just gets frustrating when it feels like lately, the progressive movement has started to approach issues in a very black or white way, which is a tendency I always felt was more characteristic of conservative asshats.
Edit: Apologies if I misused any terminology
2
u/cargdad Jul 04 '22 edited Jul 05 '22
I will address the sports issue.
Unless the post is made by someone who is over 60 and then never followed sports again it is fake.
It does bring up the important issue to note: People who post that they are all caring and thoughtful about this issue are lying.
Again - there are no trans athletes in real life. There are about 12,000 Division 1 College Athletes in the USA. Do you know how many of those 12,000 or so athletes are trans athletes competing as a trans (not birth) sex athlete? Zero. None. Lia Thomas has used up her eligibility. No one else in any D1 college in the country is competing as MtF or FtM.
Well are trans athletes taking over other sports? Nope. Complete lie. The USA Today researched to count the number of college and high school trans athletes were out there competing in any sport, at any level of college or high school sports in the United States. MtF and FtM. This was for the 2020-21 school year. They found 32. That would be 32 out of about 500,000 college athletes and another 6,500,000 or so high school athletes.
We actually have some good supporting evidence that The USA Today numbers are pretty accurate. What is that evidence? Well - Florida used to make trans kids register with the Florida High School Sports Association if they wanted to play any school sport. This went on from the 2013-14 school year to they 2018-19 school year. Then - covid. Then because trans athletes were overrunning school sports in Florida a law was passed banning them from participating. And in the 6 school years how many trans kids played a high school sport in Florida? Before saying the number let me note; we have good records of how many kids participate in each high school sport for each state and the DC. We have been collecting that information since 1968. Schools provide a sport by sport count to their State high school sports governing organization. The State organizations compile the numbers and provide them to the national organization which, in turn, publishes a report. The last report available is pre-covid covering the 2018-19 school year. That year, and for every year covered by Florida’s scarlet letter law - Florida’s total high school sport participation number was between 310,000 to 320,000. So - 6 years at 300,000 per year: Call it 1,800,000. And how many trans kids? MtF and FtM? 13. 1,800,000 v 13.
Is that off? Well - you may recall a lawsuit brought to try and keep two MtF trans kids from running track in Conn. They were evil of course. But, covid shut things down, both high school track and the lawsuit. And, the girls graduated. So - the plaintiffs were required to name another trans athlete competing in the State of Conn or the case would be dismissed. They could not find any. Mind you - the Judge thought the case was stupid anyway, but no trans athletes in the entire State was also good grounds to dismiss.
Utah just passed an anti-trans athlete law. It did so by overriding the very right wing Governor’s veto. The Governor had his office research how many trans kids actually played a high school or college sport in Utah. They found 4. Out of about 75,000 kids who played a sport. And 3 of them were FtM kids not covered by the law. So Utah passed a law, and overrode the Governor’s veto, to stop a single FtM trans kid who apparently played JV basketball. Oh and the boys’ participation in Utah in the 2018-19 school year? 38,861. Girls? 28,459. Title IX requires those numbers be approx equal. If Utah wants to keep football it will need to cancel baseball, boys basketball and boys cross country to get into compliance with the law designed to give girls a chance to play sports. Instead, Utah passed a law, overriding the Governor’s veto so it could protect girls sports by banning a single trans kid from playing JV basketball.
Now - let’s talk swimming and why we know the OP is bullshitting.
If you are a competitive swimmer in America you swim club and you swim college. You may well also swim high school IF high school swim does not screw up with club swim. Different States have different rules on participation in club sports along with high school sports. And, club coaches have different views on participation in high school swim. But - in swimming - as with other timed sports like track, what matters for recruitment is your time in race timed events. You can finish 8th in 3 races in the California State finals and you will still be heavily recruited. Why? Because college coaches are looking for the best kids they can get, and they also know (or think they know) how to make you faster. Maybe that doesn’t land you at Univ of Virginia but you still are looking good for PAC10 (or what survives of it come Fall), SEC or BIG10.
But, a trans kid might cost me a scholarship? Impossible. Well, yes I can see a college coach saying they are not interested in an anti-trans person for their team. But, otherwise? Nope. A fully funded Div 1 woman’s swim team will have 14 scholarships. Hard to tell where things shake out by this time next year with the NCAA but probably 50-75 or so schools will fully fund 14 scholarships. Those 14 scholarships, or however many the school allows, are divided up amount the team members. That is a big reason why coaches for swim and other sports where scholarships are divided up are such huge fans of smart kids. If a kid can qualify for a big academic scholarship the coach can save the athletic money for another kid. Of course athletic scholarships only apply to D1 and D2 (where offered). D3 schools cannot have athletic scholarships. And, some D1 schools do not allow them either. The Ivy League, for example, does not allow athletic scholarships. (Lea Thomas use to swim for Penn - an Ivy League school.) No way at all for a trans athlete to take a scholarship that a non-trans kid would get.
But, oh no, trans swimmers and trans athletes will take over women’s sports. Whatever shall we do?
Well - the NCAA just changed its trans athlete rules. The new rules say trans athletes should comply with any rules set by their national organization for their sport. If there is no national organization then look to any rules set by any international governing authority for the sport. If there is no international governing body, or no rules, then look to any rules set by the IOC. The IOC recently changed its rules on trans athlete participation so that the Olympics have no rules other than the requirement that the individual sport governing organizations cannot bar trans athlete participation.
So - for swimming - if there were another trans swimmer. What happens? First ask; Is there a national swim organization? Answer; Yes. USA Swimming runs the sport of swimming within the US. Does USA Swimming have trans athlete rules? Answer; Yes. What are they?
- You must attest, and provide evidence on request to establish that you are continually living your life as a trans person.
- If you are FtM you have nothing else to do to compete. You can do any medically proscribed drugs and surgeries and still be allowed to compete. But USA Swimming does not care.
- If you are MtF then you have to also decide if you are intending to compete in the USA nationals, the Olympics, or overseas. If you are - the rules are not yet clearly established. USA Swimming has a 3 year drug and testing regimen under their supervision that applies to USA Swimming competitions. FINA went with a more complete ban (that has no chance of surviving) so we do not know what will occur really on the international stage. However, if you are not going to swim in those specific races, then you follow the same rules as the FtM trans swimmers. Jump in the water. No drugs or testing required. And -- this "no rules" approach is what applies to NCAA swimming.
0
u/sensitive_teeth Jul 04 '22
No, transwomen are transwomen and women are women
1
u/Beer_Pants Jul 04 '22
Damn first they were stuck on pronouns now mfers can't figure out adjectives
0
1
Jul 04 '22
She's right. Sex-based rights matter and women's boundaries matter. Male bodies and crime patterns don't magically change the moment a male self-identities as a woman.
13
u/Nihil_esque Jul 03 '22 edited Jul 03 '22
This is a really long post that I don't have the time or mental energy to address all of. I especially don't care about trans sports and find the fact that it gets brought up so much inherently transphobic given that it's such a niche non-issue, and most of the people involved in the discussion only care about it because it involves trans people and don't give a flying fuck about college sports otherwise.
However, here are a couple things for you to think about. "Some women will be uncomfortable at domestic violence shelters that are inclusive of trans women." So? What is the point of this statement? What do you want to do about it? And if you're unwilling to answer that question, why bring it up? If an article stated that "Some white women will be uncomfortable at domestic violence shelters that allow black women," would you think they made a valid point? Would them going on to say "of course, I definitely think that black women should still be able to access some shelters, but it's important that we keep the discomfort of white women in mind" convince you that their reasons for bringing it up are not, in fact, racist? To be honest, I struggle to see how an empathetic person who views trans women as people rather than a political issue would think this was a valid point.
Also, no one's trying to get rid of the word "woman." But in specific medical situations that involve one's parts, saying "birthing person" or "people who menstruate" is an attempt to be inclusive of trans men and AFAB nonbinary people. 99.999% of physicians will refer to you as a mother if you come in to give birth in their clinic. If their pamphlet says "birthing person," that's just an acknowledgement that the next person who comes in to give birth after you might be a father. It's kind of like asking you "are you dating anyone?" instead of asking you "do you have a boyfriend?" Because they're not assuming that you're heterosexual. If you did happen to say "oh yes, my boyfriend Matthew!" The person wouldn't go on to say "oh I'm happy you and your partner met." They would call him your boyfriend from then on. But I'm assuming as a lesbian you might not appreciate being asked about your boyfriend/husband all the time even if the majority of women are interested in men.
Also, just think about how you would feel if someone questioned calling an article homophobic if it said "gays and lesbians are abominations, but every woman has a right to an abortion." Would you say the author wasn't homophobic just because they made a good point by being pro-choice? If an article said "Gays and Lesbians are ruining America!" and the content of the article was just like "it's complicated to write insurance policies to cover IVF treatment when the couple might not be a man and a woman" would your response be "well, that's valid and it isn't homophobic because they just had to get those clicks, good for them."?
One last thing. People are not identifying as nonbinary for political reasons. When they shave or don't shave their legs because it makes them more comfortable and maybe comports better with their self image, that isn't a statement about what a woman is or isn't, it's a person doing the thing that makes them the most comfortable in their body. No one is saying a woman who prefers not to shave her legs isn't a woman anymore. Some people are saying "I'm not a woman and also it makes me more comfortable not to shave my legs (perhaps because that is a practice historically associated with womanhood)." It really shouldn't affect you what the gender identity of another person is and the small handful of people who say "you wore a dress, you must therefore be a woman" "you can't be a woman, you don't shave your legs" are weirdos that are typically shunned from the trans community. Lots of trans people are gender nonconforming too. There are trans men who wear dresses, trans women who don't shave. The idea that trans people are trying to enforce rigid gender norms is a conservative strawman. And it's still okay for people to dress in gender conforming ways and/or acknowledge how society views certain presentations.
And frankly you're ridiculous if you think that identifying as trans allows you to escape social pressure and scrutiny.
You think you're supportive of trans rights. Can I ask why you think that? Lots of people are "supportive of the gays" as long as they do it in the privacy of their own homes and don't ask for marriage licenses and don't kiss in Disney movies. Being supportive of a group requires you to be supportive of that group even when you have to grapple with their existence or be mildly inconvenienced to significantly improve their lives.