OK, I'll try to explain how I see things, recognising that this might not be right, and that others here can put things better and/or differently
1) The rights that women have fought for and won are collective rights, and in a lot of cases they are sex-based rights.
2) Sex -based rights are grounded in and justified by the fact of sexed bodies. Sexed bodies do not always count for grounding rights, - eg. for the right to vote they are irrelevant - but sometimes they do.
3) There are specific contexts to do with physical material sexed bodies, such as contexts of privacy, intimacy, vulnerability (of various forms, like nudity or when we are unconscious, or physically constrained in prison) and also contexts of bodily competition, like sport.
4) In those contexts, it is a violation of those rights to substitute gender ID for sex. because it is not gender identity - how someone identifies - that grounds those rights, but sexed bodies.
5) Perhaps the most obvious example, and the one I know most about, is sport. Maybe it's also least contentious. Women have won the right to compete in their own category in sex affected sport.
6) This is a collective right like the others - you don't have to avail yourself of it, if you don't want to, but that doesn't affect the right of other women to have that right.
7) The right stems from bodies, and we cannot change the sex of our bodies. We are a dimorphic species, with different capacities. For example, men can't give birth, are stronger, on average, and have a much higher propensity to sexual violence. These things matter for rights.
8) So I hope I've responded on why these particular rights are grounded in sex, and why anyone's individual woman's agreement for them to be violated doesn't alter things.
9) On your last point, I agree that everyone has the right to live their best life - *consistent with the rights of everyone else to do the same* That's the crucial bit. In some contexts, there is a clear conflict, most obvious, though perhaps not most important in sport.
10) I think it is clear in all the contexts I've mentioned. I say that self-ID trashes women's rights, because it gives permission for the violation of those sex-based rights: Self-ID is not about bodies. The rights in question are.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jon Pike

Jon Pike Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @runthinkwrite

8 Jun
This is an interesting new paper with which I don't wholly agree, (especially in the case of archery)... /1

Integrating transwomen athletes into elite competition: the case of elite archery and shooting tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
Beyond the details, though, look at the overall logic. Here's the antecedent of the conditional:
*If* a sport is sufficiently sex-unaffected, such that the minimal physiological changes made by x-sex hormones do not affect fairness... /2
Here are two consequents:
A) *Then* it's fair to integrate transwomen
B) *Then* that sport should be unisex.

Which should we go for?
Pitsiladis et al favour (A), but I favour (B). I don't see why the argument for (A) isn't an argument for (B) .../3
Read 12 tweets
29 Mar
This is interesting (Thread) My article below has been edited, after publication, without my knowledge or agreement. 1/

Why the World Rugby guidelines banning trans athletes from the women's game are reasonable via @TC_Africa theconversation.com/why-the-world-…
The main change, on a quick look, is from 'male' and 'female' to 'assigned male' and 'assigned female'.

I don't use those terms because I'm concerned with sex as a biological fact rather than as the outcome of a social process.
This is an important distinction, and making distinctions is my job.
Read 5 tweets
6 Jan
Philosophers on Twitter getting push back about The Letter: here are some candidate actions, and some evaluations (by me) of those actions (thread):

i) Say nothing, refuse to engage
Evaluation: You have made a public stand: this makes you publicly accountable.
ii) Try to laugh it off.
Evaluation: This is a serious matter (you accept). Please don't ridicule those who disagree with you. You want to be taken seriously: take your interlocutors seriously.
iii) Straw-man your critics.
Some people will tweet that you are an effing misogynist. But other people will make polite and serious objections to the text of your letter: address the strongest objections to your claims, not the weakest.
Read 8 tweets
5 Jan
(i) P'raps I'll spell out the dialectic here. In the letter, @jichikawa elides 'trans-exclusive' and 'transphobic'. I'm coming up with a counter-example to that elision. My (philosophical) view is that trans-women should be excluded from women's rugby. Of course, I don't think
(ii) that trans-women should be excluded from rugby as such, but that they should play in the category of their birth sex (it's slightly more complicated than that, but I'll stick the paper at the end.)
(iii) On most normal understandings, this is a trans-exclusive (no scare quotes) view, in philosophy, which I argue for quite explicitly. I argue for it, because of the difference in bodies between males and females, which, I think, has ethical consequences.
Read 13 tweets
8 Dec 20
Here's an important development - and a thread...
1) This is an important new paper in @BJSM_BMJ (Roberts et al. 2020) for all those following the debate. Others better qualified than me can run through the science @FondOfBeetles, @Scienceofsport
2) In this thread I want to look at the upshot for the debate on trans women competing in women’s sport:

What does this new information do? What arguments does it close off? What possible moves in the debate does it open up?
Read 18 tweets
6 Dec 20
@EthicsInSPORT p.20 "Nonetheless it is recognized that *transfemales are not males who became females.* Rather these are people who have always been psychologically female but whose anatomy and physiology, for reasons as yet unexplained, have manifested as male...
The EWG therefore, in parallel with the Dutee Chand decision, opt against any ruling that might render a female ineligible to compete due to intrinsic factors that are beyond their control"
So 1) This is 'born in the wrong body' nonsense
2) This is (crap) Cartesian nonsense
3) This is antiscientific ('for reasons as yet unexplained')
4) psychology trumps physiology, so physiological fairness is trashed.
5) This is TW are *female* - which is, er, a *striking* claim.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!