Personally I think not having karma limits is nice currently! I understand why they were used but grinding karma as a lurker on reddit was frustrating.

  • usernotfound@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Every time that “Argument” happens it’s openly done in biologically unfounded ways by people who simply don’t understand how our bodies actually work.

    I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know how our bodies work, but I think explaining it will be more helpful in the long run than just making the subject taboo and banning everyone who asks it.

    At the beginning of the pandemic a common argument against masks was “the virus is too small to be caught in a mask” - which made sense from a layman’s point of view. When people started explaining that masks did stop the water droplets the virus needs to be airborne - that argument become a lot less common.

    Not everybody who has questions is “just asking questions”, if you catch my drift.

    • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not everybody who has questions is “just asking questions”, if you catch my drift.

      I agree with that statement, context is everything.

      I think that in the context of someone starting out going “it’s unfair for men to compete in women’s sports,” the person is “just asking questions.” That context poisons the well for questions.

      But if someone comes in and makes a thread like “I don’t understand how hormone therapy works, can someone please explain it?” that, to me, is a good faith question and 100% should not be bannable.

      • usernotfound@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        All good :)

        Now that I have your attention though, what would be a good counter argument on why trans women should be allowed to compete in the same league as non-trans women (please excuse my lacking vocabulary)?

        Like I mentioned, at first sight as a layman, the argument that trans women would have an competitive advantage makes sense to me. So I’d be grateful if you could take away my ignorance.

        • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          First for the vocabulary:

          non-trans = cisgender. cis meaning “same,” as in “same gender as assigned at birth.”

          Second, I’m not the best at doing that, but I know of a really good report which has good citations of studies and really thoroughly discusses the issue. PDF WARNING: It can be found here.

          • usernotfound@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for the former, guess I should have known that, but I’ll be sure to remember now. As for the second… I’m interested in the answer, but not 86 pages scientific report interested. Guess I’ll just have to wait around for the “water droplet”-size answer, but thanks for your patience nonetheless :)

            • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              The hardest part with this conversation is that there isn’t really a satisfying short answer, but I can try to give one.

              The biological differences between men and women that most people think of as giving men an advantage over women in sports are counteracted by hormone replacement therapy, and do not give trans women athletes an advantage over cis women athletes. Some of the arguments, such as bone density being higher in men, are literally taken word-for-word out of segregationist rhetoric- and ignores the fact that black women have higher bone density than most men. There is not a clear scientific reason to exclude trans women who are undergoing HRT from sports.

              That’s it, that’s the answer. But I feel like that’s just asking you to take my word for it- all of that and more is backed up by science in the report I linked.

              • usernotfound@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                For what it’s worth, I never checked the size of the corona virus particle either, so I’m fine with having to take your word for it :)

                It also sounds like this could be confirmed by the drug testing, which is already in place anyway, and would ensure that participants have the proper hormone level that wouldn’t give them an advantage. (I also just now remember that this was literally the plot point of a Futurama episode.)

                Thanks for taking the time to answer me. I don’t need the complete fine details, but it is a satisfying answer.