Let's agree that gender is inherently non-binary: whether biological, physical or visual, there are no simple lines to be drawn. Existing gender binaries tend, I think, to be largely social: clothes, toilets, aggressive behaviours, and so on; basically artificial constructs. But there are areas where, in my view, things get more complicated, where we *seem* to need a line, even though reality is nearer to a spectrum.
Sport is one of those: why do they separate out women's events? Because physical gender differences are thought to make direct competition unfair, maybe even dangerous. You could just make it one category, open to all, but I think you would lose diversity and variety that way. So you end up having to draw a line somewhere. Khelif's situation is unknown; but what the controversy has done is to raise the question, again, about what the criteria are for such events. The IOC is currently going with what the passport says, but the bad old days of Eastern European doping demonstrated that national authorities are far from trustworthy.
But the one I think is more important is the question of single-sex safe areas - JKR's original bugbear. Like it or otherwise, male violence against women is a major problem in our society; the other way around is real but much less common. Safe spaces for abused women don't feel safe if there is someone there who looks and sounds like their abusers. Unfair, maybe, but that is the nature of fear and of surviving abuse. Similarly, the statistics for abuse of those who are trans women are horrendous. If a trans rape survivor can't go to a women's safe space, where can she go? It would be nice to think such issues could be dealt with by simple human goodwill and common sense, but these are qualities which seem to get lost in the ideological battlefield.
Which is why I get depressed by dehumanising talk of TERFs, or of "male" boxers punching women, or openly misogynistic tweets about gin-drinking women and their opinions. Somehow Jesus seems to have combined a justice-facing ideology with compassion for people in their situations; it doesn't feel so easy today.
If you see someone chucking overly-simplistic brickbats, it's always best to throw similarly simplistic brickbats back. Of course.
Rowling thinks that (reportedly) XY chromosomes and high testosterone are relevant to safety issues in women's sport; you respond with a blanket statement that "Khelif is a woman," backed up by "She was assigned female at birth," because skin-deep is what it's all about? Followed by a long attack on a paper tiger of your own invention about a "culturally conditioned fear-reaction". There probably are people and situations where that applies, but you do seem to be using it as a way of dismissing the concerns of Rowling, a woman.
Until our society learns to deal with non-binary issues in a non-binary way, these sorts of arguments are always going to be more heat than light. It seems to me that if we are going to separate sports events into 'male' and 'female' categories then some serious thought ought to be given to why. If it's just about doubling the number of Olympic events that is one thing, but if it's to do with fairness and safety then that is a lot more complicated. Once the 'why' is clear there is at least some chance of addressing the 'who'.
Sorry, was a bit tired yesterday to reply fully. This chunk I cut out of the piece (because I thought it distracted from the main point) may be helpful to consider. (Sassiness is original, not aimed at you specifically, who I know to be a smart and thoughtful person). If it feels cute, may publish later:
Ah, but this is different, you might say. Gender may be socially and personally constructed (it is), but men and women are binary at a biological level, and insisting on strong binaries in sport is reasonable, particularly as way of promoting safety.
Sorry, bud (or buddette / enby buddleia). No.
We are talking about a situation where natural physical advantages are not just regularly but universally accepted – unless the person benefitting is a woman of colour. Specifically, the JK and people who need to STFU crew are concerned about a ‘hit people in the face competition’ where someone got upset because her opponent was *checks notes…* really good at hitting her in the face.
If Khelif has a natural advantage in hitting people in the face, it has not been proven and even the disreputable IBA has produced no evidence to this effect.
BUT. Let’s say she does. So what?
In swimming, a significant physical advantage would be quick recovery time through producing less lactic acid that a competitor (the advantage of Michael Phelps). In cycling, having an unusually large lung capacity would really put you ahead of the field (the advantage of Miguel Induráin). In basketball, a real help would be a height that got you closer to the hoop (the advantage of… *gestures at all the basketball players*). And even these advantages do not make anyone invincible. Just genetically lucky.
The fact you think a physical advantage a woman hypothetically might have must mean she’s a man displays breathtaking misogyny. And since this almost always is applied to women of colour, I’m calling racism too.
The key fact here is that high level sport hasn’t been about ordinary people with ordinary bodies for a very long time.
But let’s put that aside so we can talk about what you want to: an imaginary world split into ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ who are easily and rigidly defined in an objective way.
While you may be super proud of mastering (or mistressing / madaming) biology in primary or middle school, it turns out that the whole picture is significantly more complex than xx = female and xy = male. Hormones and biochemicals are similarly complicated.
Asserting the simplistic categories you were taught before you learned how to work a washing machine as if they are the pinnacle of scientific knowledge is not the flex you think it is. Remember, you were also taught about gravity. And the positive impacts of the British Empire. As a grown-up, you really do need to be able to encounter complexity without bursting into tears or, if you’re a billionaire writer or her simp, attacking strangers.
In the world of sport and the world generally, men, women and intersex folks come in a dazzling variety of chromosomal, hormonal and phenotypic points on a spectrum or series of spectrums (spectra? spectacles?). There are few neat lines delineating them aside from the ones we choose to give significance. And ignoring this will lead you to making a fool of yourself like JK and the TERF Squad. Worse, it will make you say unkind things to people for literally being themselves and doing their jobs.
But set aside the biological and pugilistic realities. Some of us just naturally look less or more masculine or feminine. And any boundary line you draw will be arbitrary. And demanding to look up women’s skirts every time you’re confused is not just dumb, it’s creepy as hell.
Speaking of paper tigers: I think this particular case is less about 'dismissing a woman' and more about a non scientist with no particular expertise in sport and who may legitimately compete against each other versus the people who handle this for the world. Rowling has zero evidence, but a huge axe to grind. The sporting safety issue is a red herring. You can tell by the fact she only cares about it when it imvolves people she doesn't think of as women.
Let's agree that gender is inherently non-binary: whether biological, physical or visual, there are no simple lines to be drawn. Existing gender binaries tend, I think, to be largely social: clothes, toilets, aggressive behaviours, and so on; basically artificial constructs. But there are areas where, in my view, things get more complicated, where we *seem* to need a line, even though reality is nearer to a spectrum.
Sport is one of those: why do they separate out women's events? Because physical gender differences are thought to make direct competition unfair, maybe even dangerous. You could just make it one category, open to all, but I think you would lose diversity and variety that way. So you end up having to draw a line somewhere. Khelif's situation is unknown; but what the controversy has done is to raise the question, again, about what the criteria are for such events. The IOC is currently going with what the passport says, but the bad old days of Eastern European doping demonstrated that national authorities are far from trustworthy.
But the one I think is more important is the question of single-sex safe areas - JKR's original bugbear. Like it or otherwise, male violence against women is a major problem in our society; the other way around is real but much less common. Safe spaces for abused women don't feel safe if there is someone there who looks and sounds like their abusers. Unfair, maybe, but that is the nature of fear and of surviving abuse. Similarly, the statistics for abuse of those who are trans women are horrendous. If a trans rape survivor can't go to a women's safe space, where can she go? It would be nice to think such issues could be dealt with by simple human goodwill and common sense, but these are qualities which seem to get lost in the ideological battlefield.
Which is why I get depressed by dehumanising talk of TERFs, or of "male" boxers punching women, or openly misogynistic tweets about gin-drinking women and their opinions. Somehow Jesus seems to have combined a justice-facing ideology with compassion for people in their situations; it doesn't feel so easy today.
If you see someone chucking overly-simplistic brickbats, it's always best to throw similarly simplistic brickbats back. Of course.
Rowling thinks that (reportedly) XY chromosomes and high testosterone are relevant to safety issues in women's sport; you respond with a blanket statement that "Khelif is a woman," backed up by "She was assigned female at birth," because skin-deep is what it's all about? Followed by a long attack on a paper tiger of your own invention about a "culturally conditioned fear-reaction". There probably are people and situations where that applies, but you do seem to be using it as a way of dismissing the concerns of Rowling, a woman.
Until our society learns to deal with non-binary issues in a non-binary way, these sorts of arguments are always going to be more heat than light. It seems to me that if we are going to separate sports events into 'male' and 'female' categories then some serious thought ought to be given to why. If it's just about doubling the number of Olympic events that is one thing, but if it's to do with fairness and safety then that is a lot more complicated. Once the 'why' is clear there is at least some chance of addressing the 'who'.
Sorry, was a bit tired yesterday to reply fully. This chunk I cut out of the piece (because I thought it distracted from the main point) may be helpful to consider. (Sassiness is original, not aimed at you specifically, who I know to be a smart and thoughtful person). If it feels cute, may publish later:
Ah, but this is different, you might say. Gender may be socially and personally constructed (it is), but men and women are binary at a biological level, and insisting on strong binaries in sport is reasonable, particularly as way of promoting safety.
Sorry, bud (or buddette / enby buddleia). No.
We are talking about a situation where natural physical advantages are not just regularly but universally accepted – unless the person benefitting is a woman of colour. Specifically, the JK and people who need to STFU crew are concerned about a ‘hit people in the face competition’ where someone got upset because her opponent was *checks notes…* really good at hitting her in the face.
If Khelif has a natural advantage in hitting people in the face, it has not been proven and even the disreputable IBA has produced no evidence to this effect.
BUT. Let’s say she does. So what?
In swimming, a significant physical advantage would be quick recovery time through producing less lactic acid that a competitor (the advantage of Michael Phelps). In cycling, having an unusually large lung capacity would really put you ahead of the field (the advantage of Miguel Induráin). In basketball, a real help would be a height that got you closer to the hoop (the advantage of… *gestures at all the basketball players*). And even these advantages do not make anyone invincible. Just genetically lucky.
The fact you think a physical advantage a woman hypothetically might have must mean she’s a man displays breathtaking misogyny. And since this almost always is applied to women of colour, I’m calling racism too.
The key fact here is that high level sport hasn’t been about ordinary people with ordinary bodies for a very long time.
But let’s put that aside so we can talk about what you want to: an imaginary world split into ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ who are easily and rigidly defined in an objective way.
While you may be super proud of mastering (or mistressing / madaming) biology in primary or middle school, it turns out that the whole picture is significantly more complex than xx = female and xy = male. Hormones and biochemicals are similarly complicated.
Asserting the simplistic categories you were taught before you learned how to work a washing machine as if they are the pinnacle of scientific knowledge is not the flex you think it is. Remember, you were also taught about gravity. And the positive impacts of the British Empire. As a grown-up, you really do need to be able to encounter complexity without bursting into tears or, if you’re a billionaire writer or her simp, attacking strangers.
In the world of sport and the world generally, men, women and intersex folks come in a dazzling variety of chromosomal, hormonal and phenotypic points on a spectrum or series of spectrums (spectra? spectacles?). There are few neat lines delineating them aside from the ones we choose to give significance. And ignoring this will lead you to making a fool of yourself like JK and the TERF Squad. Worse, it will make you say unkind things to people for literally being themselves and doing their jobs.
But set aside the biological and pugilistic realities. Some of us just naturally look less or more masculine or feminine. And any boundary line you draw will be arbitrary. And demanding to look up women’s skirts every time you’re confused is not just dumb, it’s creepy as hell.
Speaking of paper tigers: I think this particular case is less about 'dismissing a woman' and more about a non scientist with no particular expertise in sport and who may legitimately compete against each other versus the people who handle this for the world. Rowling has zero evidence, but a huge axe to grind. The sporting safety issue is a red herring. You can tell by the fact she only cares about it when it imvolves people she doesn't think of as women.
Siding with her is the teuly unhelpful approach.