But the obvious rejoinder
Megan McCardle writes about Lia Thomas:
I’ve now written two columns about Thomas, and it is striking how many people — almost all of them liberal — have spontaneously erupted when I told them what I was writing about. All made the same complaint: It’s not fair.
What’s striking about that? Of course it’s not fair. The unfairness is laughably (enragingly) obvious. He’s mocking us.
There’s little question that Thomas has retained some of the many biological advantages conferred by male puberty, such as height, heart and lung capacity, and strength. But the obvious rejoinder is that of course biology isn’t fair; it never was, and never can be.
That rejoinder is not obvious at all. It’s flippant and insulting.
We aren’t going to be educated out of our feeling that there are major differences between biological men and women. The male/female performance gap appears at puberty in most sports, and quickly becomes so large that most cisgender women would never be able to compete at more elite levels if we weren’t segregated into our own leagues. Women’s sports exist to benefit us, not to keep us from hogging men’s glory.
Quite, which is why the obvious rejoinder isn’t obvious.
H/t Sackbut
It is a rejoinder expected from those who advocate for “trans inclusion”, and is in that sense obvious. I agree it’s flippant. I don’t think she is making the rejoinder, but rather saying that other people make it.
I read the article a little bit more charitably, because I think McArdle raises some good issues, even if she doesn’t quite get all the way to a solid position. McArdle acknowledges that the biological differences between Thomas and women are more relevant to the “unfairness” issue than the biological differences between Katie Ledecky and other women. She recognizes that many of the arguments in favor of “trans inclusion” have a logical endpoint of no sex-based divisions, just one big “open” league. She finds that result untenable, but cannot quite articulate why. She asks what is the purpose of women’s sports. That’s a darn good question, one that the focus on “unfairness” doesn’t quite capture.
Emma Hilton had a good Twitter thread recently saying that the “trans inclusion” argument, “it’s all one big mix of different advantages”, leads logically to the elimination of all categories in sports. If men-who-claim-to-be-women can compete in the women’s division, why not all men? If bigger and stronger men can compete against women, why bother having weight classes in weightlifting or wrestling or boxing? Why have age groups? Just let the best compete in these high-level competitions. But the categories, including the sex categories, exist for reasons: it is important to some of us that there be high-level competitions reserved for these categories of people.
McArdle notes that “Whatever various social purposes women’s sports serve, their justification is biology.” She is unclear what those social purposes might be, beyond perhaps “the joy of all-female teams”. But I think she’s looking in the right direction.
Maybe the trans people aren’t getting enough recognition after all, so let’s create trans athlete divisions. Surely Thomas would be competitive in a transwomen’s division in collegiate swimming, McKinnon in bicycling, Hubbard in weightlifting, etc. etc. This would solve most of the objections on both sides of the issue. Given the current popularity of television shows dedicated to crossdressers and transitioners, would there not be an audience for trans athletes as well? Give them what they want; proper divisions with little sexless statuettes for the winners.
I mean I won’t watch any of that ridiculous dreck, sorry, but there are people who do, just like there are people who watched Trump’s ridiculous TV dreck. Let’s think of the undiscerning TV heads too, ffs. :P
I was bothered by the idea that she seems to be okay with prepubescent transition.
Mike @ 3
That bothered me, too, along with the “authentic true selves” bit and a few other things. Still, she’s thinking, and realizing that some of the claims lack evidence and the demands have ramifications, so maybe she’s learning. It sounds like she’s received pushback for daring to talk about these issues without toeing the party line, so good for her. May she peak, rather than bow to the bullying.
twiliter @ 2
I don’t think it would be satisfactory to the trans lobby. They don’t want trophies and scholarships and prize money and locker rooms of their own, they want to share (or usurp) the ones designated for women. We’ve seen this also with suggestions for separate unisex spaces.
(Re unisex spaces: I’ve seen that some venues are splitting women’s facilities, or converting them wholesale, to create unisex spaces. I visited a newly reconstructed highway rest stop, and saw a unisex facility next to the women’s room. I thought this was yet another example, until I noticed there was another unisex facility next to the men’s room. Good!)
But that’s not what they want. Having a separate trans division would deny them their validation as “women” in exactly the same way that “third space” toilet facilities would. Trans activists don’t want a solution that’s “fair” that does not give them the hit of affirmation they crave. They don’t want to put a spotlight on their “transness”, they want to be centered, celebrated, and rewarded for their “womanliness.” The idea behind TWAW and “NO DEBATE” is to bulldoze over the fact that they are not women. The point of institutional capture was to use the power of these institutions like so many medieval siege engines to breach the boundaries of women’s spaces quickly and quietly, without discussion or consultation, so that TiMs’ presence in them would become a fait accompli. Somehow, this was disguised and passed off as a progressive, compassionate movement. Only one thing stood in the way. Women. Women’s resistance is painted as bigotry and hatred, instead of the defence of women’s rights and safety. To put this struggle in another way, it’s aggressive, “colonial expansion” vs. spirited, self-defence of the “homeland.”
The TiM argument that “we’ve been in women’s washrooms for years” is more gloating than anything else. The denial of a conflict of rights is hard to maintain without the strenuous denial of women’s legitimate needs. Proponents of this supposedly “progressive” position are forced to publicly defend more and more indefencible things, Thomas’s blatant cheating among them. Add that to prisons, hospital wards and women’s shelters. It’s amazing how much some of them are able to stomach with a straight face. Without the collusion of the media, it would be much more difficult. Ophelia has highlighted so many stories where the denial of the material reality of sex completely transforms the meaning and import of headlines and entire stories, with ideological positions passed off as “politeness” and ” journalistic style guides” rather than an active taking of one side (and one side only) at the hearts of these very stories. Actual, unbiased neutrality would not do this.
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on The obvious […]
At least she acknowledged that the people saying it’s not fair are liberal, instead of pretending that only right wingers object.