Hacker News Reader

Isn't their purpose to be politically biased?

Just because you share the bias doesn't make it unbiased

>I am disappointed to see them, for example, file lawsuits against schools that are trying to ensure that only biological women participate in sports divisions for women

Trans women are women. These schools are denying this with this idea, so it seems like a good use of the ACLU's resources to me. Morality aside, I don't know about the legal aspects of defending that principle in the US, but presumably the ACLU have some ground.

>, so that those sports are competitive and fair.

[drifting off the OP topic, but...] shouldn't school sports be about inclusion? what is your ideal of fairness here? For me, the pursuit and rewarding of certain idealised body types selected by narrow athletic criteria reminiscent of pageantry has never been 'fair' for anybody..

School sports ought to focus on inclusive physical self-improvement, help kids develop cooperative skills, resolve conflicts and work together for a common goal, that sort of thing.

> Trans women are women

Trans women are women from a gender perspective, and not from a biological perspective. Unfortunately, the biological perspective is what the separations of men's and women's sports a thing, because of inherent biological sexual differences (primarily testosterone). I mean, if they want to get around the issue, then let's go all in - disband men's/women's sports and just have sports. Then anyone can play with anyone. That's never going to happen though, for political, cultural, and safety reasons, so we're stuck with a situation where gender is bumping up against biological sex hard.

> Trans women are women from a gender perspective, and not from a biological perspective.

From a biological perspective, trans-people lie in-between male and female. Transwomen are at an increased risk of breast cancer than cis-men while a lower risk prostate cancer. Transwomen (after years of estradiol) have significantly less muscle mass than cis-men, while, transmen have much more muscle mass than cis-women. All of the differences biologically are the result of sex hormones and the time at which they're introduced (pre-natal or puberty) and the time of exposure.

That said, I don't think it's wise for trans-women to play in serious sports. If they win, they won't get the credit, they'll be told it's because they're trans. If they lose, well, then no one cares and it doesn't make the headlines. It's unfair and unjust, but honestly, sports have never been fair or just. Especially the Olympics, they're a selection ritual for celebrating people who are genetically optimized for some specific task. I don't understand why it exists except for out of tradition.

Yes, trans women are women. Agreed.

The challenge is that trans women are women who used to have comparatively vast quantities of testosterone in their bodies, giving them dramatically higher bone density along with all of the other side effects of testosterone on the body.

When they transition fully, the estrogen has a side-effect of preserving the bone density they had previously. Specifically, this gives them a massive advantage in combat sports like MMA. I won't get into the other musculoskeletal aspects that happen.

It's a vexing problem, because I don't like the idea of trans women not being treated like women. It sucks to think about that. It also sucks for non-trans women who are getting their skulls fractured in fights.

The reality is that fans of non trans female athletes aren't going to accept this. When a tiny percentage of the population is trans, and suddenly trans women start winning at the highest levels of female sports at an insanely disproportionate amount, it clearly indicates that being trans provides a massive advantage in female sports. I haven't found any cases of trans men dominating in male sports.

I'm pro trans rights, and also know that my view on this is deeply unpopular in the trans community. I'm not sure what the answer is for this. Sometimes, reality doesn't mesh with our ideals.

I think the answer has to be to find a different way to categorize people into groups for sports competitions.

Would it work to just group people by bone density and weight class?

Or for MMA, just some sort of scale of ass-kickingness. I would have to be in the can't punch out of a wet paper bag class, which I don't think would get shown on TV. ;)

Or you know, have all individuals compete with each other regardless of gender. And if we're not happy with the above suggestion, then we need to define why such a competition would be unfair. Once we can answer that "why" without gender or sex being involved, then everyone will be happy because it'll be as fair as can be had in a diverse society with a range of opinions. That'll include people that are not convinced on the gender/sex debate.

The problem now is that we're being polarized on an emotional issue with both sides being demonized. E.g. One side says the other is hateful of trans people, the other side says trans is being pushed on them unfairly, etc. If we rather focus on the facts and amoral concepts (e.g. testosterone count), and drive opinion/policy based on that, there is good chance that we can all coexist without having to force opinions and understanding on both sides where it's largely unwanted. Only then can we come together and have a single, happy view on the topic as a society.

Everyone discussing this issue needs to be very upfront and clear on whether they're talking about sex or gender. Sports leagues are explicitly about biological sex, and not gender. Your statement is not applicable here and is often used to add confusion and outrage while preventing any forward progress.

Perhaps there needs to be new vocabulary to describe sex and gender separately but that's a different topic. As for fairness, this is the best we can do on a broad scale between male and female because of the vast differences. After that we leave it to the individual to decide which sport best fits their physicality and interests.

>These days the ACLU is incredibly politically biased

I was going to post the same in anticipation of the partisan downvotes that you're receiving. Without going into specifics, this sums it up nicely:

>It’s not that the left shouldn’t have opportunities to speak up against the president’s agenda -- of course it should. But the ACLU shouldn’t be its political bullhorn. The organization’s legal independence gave it special standing. By falling in line with dozens of other left-leaning advocacy groups, the ACLU risks diminishing its focus on civil liberties litigation and abandoning its reputation for being above partisanship

One issue in particular is the ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment, which they do not fight for with the same fervor as the first.

1.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/08/the_ac...

Their lack of support for the second amendment is the only reason I don’t support them. It proves that they’re politically slanted and it truly for my civil rights. Unfortunately the NRA has drifted from their core issue to bashing non-conservative candidates. I also can’t support them.