[teejers1]

My perspective is as a cis male without any daughter of any gender.  Nor any connection to a competitive female athlete at this moment (beyond some beyond their prime professional volleyball players that are friends from my time at Stanford, but nothing familial.) Given this, I do not have the emotional ties to this as many people do.  It does seem like the majority of people with issue with this problem currently have daughters competing competitively at the moment (or have issues with trans in general; definitely not implying that is you or anybody who has posted here, just stating in general.)  

FWIW, all of the same applies to me (cis male, no daughters, no connection to youth sports), but you can count me among those who are concerned about these policies. It's not that I don't care, it's just that (a) with demands on my time I haven't even had a chance to watch our WBB team's wins over OSU and Colorado yet, let alone write up my own two cents, and (b) I don't voice them much, because among my crowd, the "TERF" accusations seem to run rampant the second anyone says anything even vaguely questioning of some of these policies. And it's just not worth the risk of social disdain given how tangential my real-world interests are to this issue and all the other things on my plate. (And to this, I would echo BC's gratitude for the "cooler heads prevail" approach this thread has taken, which is the sole reason I'm wading into the waters with my two cents here at all.)

But I definitely have concerns, and if I could sum them up briefly, it's this: there's a of immense proportions tension between views around construction and essentialism in gender and sex. In the case of Queer movements, that effort has mostly required treating notions of gender identity and construction as fluid, but sexual biology as fixed. So we've rewritten what it means to navigate the world as a man or woman, but not that they are men or women.  In other words, while some straight guys might be a little uncomfortable in the locker room around a gay guy (because traditional notions of the gender performance of a "man" is that they should not be sexually attracted to other men), no one's disputing that, as a matter of sexual biology, that gay guy belongs in that locker room. And while a man can now say "my husband" without turning heads, the term "husband" has remained fixed as it always has been - a person's legally wedded male life partner. So gender identity may have to change, but sexual biology has remained fixed.

By contrast, the notion of trans inclusionism needs to reject any essential link to gender and sexuality at all, while treating gender, rather than sexual biology, as essential or fixed. "I felt uncomfortable in my body" essentially means "my sexual biology doesn't map onto my gender performance and identity," and my sexual biology, rather than my gender performance and identity, needs to become fluid. Trans-inclusion, then, is in part about respecting individuals' assertion of gender over their sexual biology, and making sexual biology follow gender identity. On a case by case basis, this is all well and fine.

But the slope gets slippery in places where we've traditionally policed boundaries on the basis of sexual biology as being fixed. One example of this is in language. You used the phrase "any daughter of any gender."  That's a striking turn of phrase to me, since I think many associate the term "daughter" with female sexual biology as much as gender identity. So it will be necessary, for example, to revisit all linguistic terms that are sex-specific to determine whether those specifics are based on sex or gender - if the latter, then we need new phrases like "pregnant persons" rather than "pregnant women." And to do so, of course, requires detaching the gender and sexual biology linguistic link altogether, because as a matter of sexual biology, only individuals biologically sexed as what we call women can get pregnant.

Where the slope gets slipperiest, however, is how to police literal boundaries. When we divide locker rooms or sports competitions, we've traditionally done so, I've assumed, on the basis of sexual biology, not gender. And I've assumed we've done so, especially in sports, because we recognize that sexual biology is so determinative of performance and team cohesion, both on and off the field. (Thus, I view this issue very differently than, say, access to bathrooms, for which I don't see anywhere near the biologically determinative need for division on either performance or cohesion lines.)

Now, science may show us that in some sports, and with some kinds of sex transitioning hormones, there's little to no performance advantage for fully transitioned MTF trans athletes.  But I don't think we know enough, yet, to be able to sort that out - how long, how far into transition, how much of certain hormones being present? And socially, what about those who have later decided to detransition? Does their existence suggest that, in fact, gender is not necessarily any more essential than sexual biology? At what age should we decide that individuals are legally and emotionally competent to decide their gender construction should triumph over their sexual biology? 

In short, there's a lot to sort out here, and the world is moving quickly. In the mean time, I think many with hesitation about these issues have felt shouted down for questioning any of these issues at all, and have had it insinuated, if not outrightly stated, that they are bigots and transphobes. Sure, many are (especially the crude types on social media). In my case, I hope I am not, and don't think I am, either a bigot or a transphobe. But I do think these are complicated questions and to act like everything can be settled by simply being "inclusive" strikes me as both overly naive, overly simplistic, and unfairly flattening of very reasonable questions and concerns.

(*And yes, this is overly simplifying, and there are good arguments that sexual biology is not fully essential nor as cleanly divided into woman/man or XX/XY as some suggest. But I think those are questions of degree rather than kind.)

Thanks for hearing my two cents, and have enjoyed reading everyone else's.

Great post.  I agree right down the line with one small exception: on The Great Bathroom Debate.  I get why those identifying as one gender would prefer to use the designated bathroom for that gender.  But I think the debate ignores the very real discomfort others (perhaps a lot more  others) feel about having that person in "their" designated bathroom.  And the fix is easy - another bathroom.  But perhaps that's too simplistic.

And to spike, I had to smile at your anecdotal post about mom and sister.  The interplay between passion and wisdom occurs on many fronts.

[teejers1]

My perspective is as a cis male without any daughter of any gender.  Nor any connection to a competitive female athlete at this moment (beyond some beyond their prime professional volleyball players that are friends from my time at Stanford, but nothing familial.) Given this, I do not have the emotional ties to this as many people do.  It does seem like the majority of people with issue with this problem currently have daughters competing competitively at the moment (or have issues with trans in general; definitely not implying that is you or anybody who has posted here, just stating in general.)  

FWIW, all of the same applies to me (cis male, no daughters, no connection to youth sports), but you can count me among those who are concerned about these policies. It's not that I don't care, it's just that (a) with demands on my time I haven't even had a chance to watch our WBB team's wins over OSU and Colorado yet, let alone write up my own two cents, and (b) I don't voice them much, because among my crowd, the "TERF" accusations seem to run rampant the second anyone says anything even vaguely questioning of some of these policies. And it's just not worth the risk of social disdain given how tangential my real-world interests are to this issue and all the other things on my plate. (And to this, I would echo BC's gratitude for the "cooler heads prevail" approach this thread has taken, which is the sole reason I'm wading into the waters with my two cents here at all.)

But I definitely have concerns, and if I could sum them up briefly, it's this: there's a of immense proportions tension between views around construction and essentialism in gender and sex. In the case of Queer movements, that effort has mostly required treating notions of gender identity and construction as fluid, but sexual biology as fixed. So we've rewritten what it means to navigate the world as a man or woman, but not that they are men or women.  In other words, while some straight guys might be a little uncomfortable in the locker room around a gay guy (because traditional notions of the gender performance of a "man" is that they should not be sexually attracted to other men), no one's disputing that, as a matter of sexual biology, that gay guy belongs in that locker room. And while a man can now say "my husband" without turning heads, the term "husband" has remained fixed as it always has been - a person's legally wedded male life partner. So gender identity may have to change, but sexual biology has remained fixed.

By contrast, the notion of trans inclusionism needs to reject any essential link to gender and sexuality at all, while treating gender, rather than sexual biology, as essential or fixed. "I felt uncomfortable in my body" essentially means "my sexual biology doesn't map onto my gender performance and identity," and my sexual biology, rather than my gender performance and identity, needs to become fluid. Trans-inclusion, then, is in part about respecting individuals' assertion of gender over their sexual biology, and making sexual biology follow gender identity. On a case by case basis, this is all well and fine.

But the slope gets slippery in places where we've traditionally policed boundaries on the basis of sexual biology as being fixed. One example of this is in language. You used the phrase "any daughter of any gender."  That's a striking turn of phrase to me, since I think many associate the term "daughter" with female sexual biology as much as gender identity. So it will be necessary, for example, to revisit all linguistic terms that are sex-specific to determine whether those specifics are based on sex or gender - if the latter, then we need new phrases like "pregnant persons" rather than "pregnant women." And to do so, of course, requires detaching the gender and sexual biology linguistic link altogether, because as a matter of sexual biology, only individuals biologically sexed as what we call women can get pregnant.

Where the slope gets slipperiest, however, is how to police literal boundaries. When we divide locker rooms or sports competitions, we've traditionally done so, I've assumed, on the basis of sexual biology, not gender. And I've assumed we've done so, especially in sports, because we recognize that sexual biology is so determinative of performance and team cohesion, both on and off the field. (Thus, I view this issue very differently than, say, access to bathrooms, for which I don't see anywhere near the biologically determinative need for division on either performance or cohesion lines.)

Now, science may show us that in some sports, and with some kinds of sex transitioning hormones, there's little to no performance advantage for fully transitioned MTF trans athletes.  But I don't think we know enough, yet, to be able to sort that out - how long, how far into transition, how much of certain hormones being present? And socially, what about those who have later decided to detransition? Does their existence suggest that, in fact, gender is not necessarily any more essential than sexual biology? At what age should we decide that individuals are legally and emotionally competent to decide their gender construction should triumph over their sexual biology? 

In short, there's a lot to sort out here, and the world is moving quickly. In the mean time, I think many with hesitation about these issues have felt shouted down for questioning any of these issues at all, and have had it insinuated, if not outrightly stated, that they are bigots and transphobes. Sure, many are (especially the crude types on social media). In my case, I hope I am not, and don't think I am, either a bigot or a transphobe. But I do think these are complicated questions and to act like everything can be settled by simply being "inclusive" strikes me as both overly naive, overly simplistic, and unfairly flattening of very reasonable questions and concerns.

(*And yes, this is overly simplifying, and there are good arguments that sexual biology is not fully essential nor as cleanly divided into woman/man or XX/XY as some suggest. But I think those are questions of degree rather than kind.)

Thanks for hearing my two cents, and have enjoyed reading everyone else's.

Great post.  I agree right down the line with one small exception: on The Great Bathroom Debate.  I get why those identifying as one gender would prefer to use the designated bathroom for that gender.  But I think the debate ignores the very real discomfort others (perhaps a lot more  others) feel about having that person in "their" designated bathroom.  And the fix is easy - another bathroom.  But perhaps that's too simplistic.

And to spike, I had to smile at your anecdotal post about mom and sister.  The interplay between passion and wisdom occurs on many fronts.