ACA Denounces Rationality Rules on Basis of Transphobia
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
They have since retracted their statement and apologised (albeit, a piss poor apology) but I feel the damage is done...
Thank you Random, and thanks to everyone who helped them see the light, RR deserves it.
Personally, all things considered, if I were Rationality Rules, I would likely be telling the ACA to take their apology and insert it into a specific bodily orifice and then go have intimate relations with themselves. But, hey, that's just me....
@Kataclismic: Agreed! I sent three charmers, as only I can write them, supported with FACTS, LINKS and other YouTube pissed off atheists. The whole ACA even with the apology have dropped a few notches in my esteem of them. How do a bunch of supposedly brighter than the average person FUCK UP so bad.
Where is that apology??? I have not seen it.
Agreed Tin Man, the whole tone of the 'apology' was akin to a child being forced to apologise for being a twat, when they clearly had been a twat but they personally dont feel like they were so.
Utterly frustrating that this kind of partisan political scoring and virtue signalling has infiltrated what should be a safe haven for free and critical thinkers.
I have not seen the apology. Someone post a link.
Not seeing an apology. Just a statement saying they retract the original hogwash.
I see a statement saying it was retracted and then ---- "THERE IT IS." What was retracted? I see no apology.
To be fair both sides have a reasonable case, Rationality Rules video was poor by his usual standards, similar to that of his Brexit video...
But that said, on the actual topic, biologically born females are the ones being discriminated against here as they simply cannot compete with someone of a specific gender that was unfortunately born to a biological sex they do not recognize, or reject etc...
The facts are the facts and I would urge people to delve into the biological science as oppose to social science.
I do feel for the trans community, I honestly do, but there are genuine biological differences that have helped us evolve to the species we are today.
And they need to be careful too!
The real issue for me is trans men (biological female) partaking in men's events, especially boxing! That is ridiculously dangerous!
Rationalit rules really should have used scientific evidence from biologists and actual scientists in relevant fields to underpin his arguement.
And for that, ACA are within the right to criticise his videos... but they went to far in my opinion.
Furthermore, there apology was piss poor as previously stated.
@Randomhero1982: Possibly compared to his other videos. I have not watched enough to compare.
Still; He did say that he was willing to discuss the issue and change his mind. He did a very adequate job of citing facts and evidence for his potion. I really liked the video clip of Joe R. holding up his fist and demonstrating the difference between male and female. Finally, the woman in question was BORN FEMALE. There is no issue here. She was not transgender.
denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.
Granted there are definitions that are more broad but we are not talking about Transsexuals here and the woman in question is not have an identity that does not correspond with her birth identity.
Anyway - I watched RR's video and found myself largely in agreement. Biological men should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. I see no problem at all with this perspective. I think that was the only point being made.
Yeah, his other videos tend to stick to logical arguments and pointing out the fallacies... which he is good at.
But the trans athletes video, you just knee if it wasnt backed with scientific data, the shit would hit the fan within various communities.
I do agree with the argument and some of the points, but when tackling a topic such as this, you need solid data to back you up.
This is no different to us listening to theists, show us the data or at least make a good effort to do so and you won't be publically shamed.
I once fell into this when explaining that there are huge differences in males and females on Twitter and got called all sorts of stuff (luckily I'm not someone who cares all that much) but the point was valid that I made... Katie Taylor is a brilliant womens lightweight world champion, I watch all her fights... but how does she fair against her mens counterpart... Vasily Lomachenko, arguably one of the greatest of all time.
That was just one blunt, simple point.
I agree, I would fear for my son if he ever get's interested in contact sports. He will never have the body strength or physique of a biological male.
Don't know the answer to the problem, a handicap system sounds reasonable to me though.
Rationality Rules posts an apology. I don;t see where it is needed without splitting hairs but here it is anyway.
I am looking forward to his next video where he points to the flaws.
Can someone help me out? I've watched the RR video, read the ACA letter, watched the ACA president on nonsequitor, and read a number of posts. I honestly am not clear on the specifics of the issue. Is/was the ACA responding to the fact that the video asked the question or came to the conclusion it did? Was something specific said that was offensive? I did not hear anything I understood to be transphobic but I admit (as a 66 year old fart, white guy) that I might gotten it wrong. For the record I do support trans females competing in the woman's events even though I think the science is very thin at this time on both sides as to any potential advantage that might or might not exist.
@RickB: The ACA alleged Rational Reality was being Transphobic. Most people do not seem to agree, In his recent video he admits to using some poor examples; however, like you -- I just don't see them. His points are clear. Biological men should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. WHERE IS THE FRIGGING PROBLEM?
The issue may be more about how to define a biological man. Well that is up to the sports organizations as well as the athletes. I think we all agree that it is not fair to have men competing against women in most sports. (I wonder if a men's synchronized swimming team could outscore a woman's team? )
In his next video Rationality Rules said that he will go over some of the things he said that might have been insensitive. Like you, I am just waiting for the video because I did not see a whole lot wrong with his original. I am betting that if there are problems, they are very nuanced,.
Cognotic, thank that helps. I'll wait on the RR response.
I was thinking about your comment suggesting redefining biological male. Not sure if I agree that is the best answer but I think you are on to something in your approach. I believe the IOC and other sports bodies refer to woman competition (or age divisions etc) as a protected class. Maybe an overhaul of the protected classes is needed that does not directly rely on the traditional male/female approach. I don't have a real solution but what about protected classes that rely on things like % muscle mass etc? Could also require gender identification as female, max testosterone levels etc. So any woman (tans or cis) is allowed to compete against other females within a category. FYI, I would have no problem if they removed the protected class "men" completely. Just have an open category that allows anyone to compete. Thoughts?
@RickB: There are no major sports categories in which the top woman can compete against the top male.
"Given that both men and women train equally hard, why is it that men, on average, are faster runners than women? Even the world's fastest man is about a second speedier on the 100-meter dash than the world's fastest woman: Usain Bolt did it in 9.58 seconds, versus the late Florence Griffith Joyner's time of 10.49 seconds."
"In MMA fighting, could women and men compete equally, assuming weight class limitations apply?"
"Absolutely not...I've noticed the only people who ever respond to these types of questions by saying that women could 'compete equally' in an MMA setting either provide zero evidence supporting their claim or are noticeably ignorant on the nature of Mixed Martial Arts. "
Lucia Rijker was considered by many the worlds best female kickboxer. Undefeated as a boxer (17-0) and undefeated as a kickboxer (37-0-1) with absolutely dominant performances against other women that were also considered elite..... Rijker challenges a man (Somchai Jaidee). Note that this man is a middle-of-the-pack, journeyman kickboxer,,,,,, What proceeded to happen was an absolute beatdown. Lucia was able to land some clean shots at times in the first round, but her opponent never appeared to be remotely dazed. He, more times than not, beat her to the punch with his speed and got the better of exchanges by landing the noticeably harder shots. He knocked her down several times in the first round without ever appearing like he was expending any significant effort. She was knocked out cold in the second round in a fight she was never competitive in. "
MEN AND WOMEN ARE BUILT DIFFERENTLY. YOU WILL FIND THE SAME STATISTICS AS THESE THROUGHOUT THE SPORTING WORLD.
I don't think we disagree much, if at all. I did not intend to imply that that cis men are not different from women. I do not dispute the statistics (I would have been shocked if it were otherwise ) and freely state that I think, due to male female hormone differences, there should be competition that necessarily excludes some individuals (ex. no cis men in female competition). What advantages and to what degree said advantages play to trans women over cis women is not well studied (probably because it was not considered to be important when trans females were not included in any consideration). Testosterone may be reduced but bone structure remains in trans females etc, but not many formal scientific studies have looked at this so I hesitate to extrapolate much further at this point. I agree that it is almost a certainty that any cis women would be beat up in the ring against the top cis male fighters. Thats a good reason in my view to have a woman's category. I also suspect that all (or at best almost all) of the top women fighters would kick my ass. But consider what we're saying. We seem to agree that in many sports men outperform women, what I was trying to get at was that if there was a woman who wanted to compete with men, and was good enough to reach the elite level, then let her compete. If the male is better he will win. It's up to the individual to decide to be a fighter. I suspect most women will have a great deal of trouble in mens division boxing and will never reach the necessary level, but even if there is only one woman good enough to be competitive, let her make the decision to compete or not and let the best person win.
Top women do compete with men. The in the world of Darts the top woman player competed with men. She never made top 25. You have the example of golf and MMA above. I fully agree, we could drop the category "Mens." and simply call it "Open." I see no problem with that what so ever.
There is far more going on then simply female Male hormones in the biological differences between men and women.
Hemoglobin rate, muscle mass, metabolism, bone density, physiological structures, fast twitch muscle fibres and so on...
I'd challenge you to find any female athletic world record that would get in the top 100 of mens in the 5 months of 2019 alone.
And I'm sorry, but you could put every Male to female trans person in a utopia with the most caring and fertile males on this planet and they will never pass the 1st generation.
I dont like this as much as anyone and if a trans person asked me to call them by what name they wish to go by, I would in a heartbeat.
They deserve fair treatment, understanding and compassion, but we cant simply brush a side the science.
Furthermore, I treat this subject how I treat religion, show me the actual solid, empirical evidence.
Not sure what you mean about 2019; but for what it worth: Penny Lee Dean holds the 11th fastest time for swimming the English channel (and at one time held the fastest record), and still holds other fastest swimming records (for any gender).
Apologies Nyar if I did not make certain things clear in regards to 2019.
If you take any world record set by a women, it would not even make the top 100 times of this year alone by men.
And penny Lee dean was amazing, but still even her amazing time across the channel has been beaten by almost an hour.
Surely even yourself must concede that there are vast difference biologically?!
You can tell from the naughty bits that there are differences.
To be clear, I am of the opinion that testosterone exposure does result in some significant level of development that is to the advantage of trans female athletes. That said I try not to give the impression that my position was arrived at from anything other than observing people. I think the argument is strong but I don't want to misrepresent it.I can't say how much or in what areas any future studies might support this view so I try to avoid making specific statements about its magnitude.
When I mentioned testosterone and bone structure I also put in "etc" They were intended as examples, not an exhaustive list. I used testosterone levels as an example for the trans side because I'm aware of one scientific study that presented data where the authors concluded past testosterone levels did not show much difference in the markers they were looking at compared to cis females. I have no reason to doubt the authors, but one small study looking at a very focused question is very far from conclusive evidence that there is no difference at all. Unfortunately when I hear arguments saying "just look at the science", my answer is "I'm trying" I just can't find much. If you are aware of other cases that compared trans to cis females (not men compared to women) then you have more info than I do which would not surprise me.
I think you hit on the underlying issue in your last statement but I take another view. The subject has much in common with religion in that "fairness" is ill-defined (like most gods) and can mean different things to different people. There is no empirical evidence for how fair a thing is since fairness is not an objective thing. Effects from testosterone can be studied objectively. Fairness can't. On one level it might be argued trans competitors are unfair to the cis women because of earlier exposure to testosterone. The exposure to is an objective fact, the fairness is not. On another level it is argued that its unfair to trans women to ban them since they are women and want to compete in female events.
I think we both agree trans women deserve the same human rights as everyone else. This was not arrived at by objective reasoning. Human rights of any kind, for anyone, are intrinsically a subjective stance. So we can agree on the principle of fairness (even though it is subjective) but we will inevitably have different opinions of what is fair. My view is that to not differentiate trans women from cis in athletic competition is fair from the perspective of trans rights. Nevertheless, trans women have had a kind of hormone exposure that cis women did not so it is unfair from that perspective. It becomes a moot point if there is no advantage so I'm not surprised that some people hope it can be shown through scientific studies that there is no significant advantage. If you're particularly zealous in your conviction you might want to argue (erroneously) the science already proves there is no difference. In the most extreme cases it gets argued that the science is already conclusive and to approach the topic from this angle is at best ignorant and at worst a sign of hidden trans phobia. I reject this.
So how do we make it fair? I immediately reject the separate but equal approach (have a trans category), Not on principle, it's just that it's been tried in American society and produced the opposite result of what most would describe as fair and/or equal. I reject it because it does not work.
I don't have an answer but I think we might get closer to a result that satisfies our idea of fairness if we reexamine the protected categories in sport. No one seems to object to weight categories in some sports, perhaps % muscle mass/weight categories. I know this does not address all potential testosterone effects, it's just intended to illustrate that other ways to look at this may be available.
At the end of the day power sports are going to be dominated by those who are the most powerful competitors. If it turns out that the biggest badass women are also trans then so be it. If trans women are excluded they would just get replaced with women who have clear advantages from sources other than early male development Things like parent genetics, socioeconomic factors, nutrition, etc.
Bottom line for me is I think human rights of trans people are far more important than the somewhat arbitrary standards of fairness in sport. Subjective? Yes, we' re discussing a subjective idea.
I'm not an especially old person, but nowadays, it seems like a generation or age is 5 years, whereas in the past, it was 30...100...500...1000 years in terms of the scale you'd measure significant change by.
Sometimes I worry of a night going by and making a faux pas over something comparatively trivial. Having said that, I should say that I would not prefer to live in the past and my fear should really be should be directed at unreasonable vigilantes.
Matt's Final Response - Quite logical as usual.
Rationality Rules' Apology