I admittedly wouldn't have made the connection between pro-fossil fuel and anti-trans politics. It's a strange brew, seemingly being not wholly tactical and not wholly ideological. Regardless of what the people behind this agenda believe, though, it's a disgusting mix.
The silver lining, as is referenced in the piece, is that intertwining environmental rights and trans rights in this way makes it that much more likely that we can fight back on both fronts. I just hope the majority of climate activists will see it as a collective struggle.
Anne Nelson's "Shadow Network" documents the rise of the Council for National Policy (CNP), the mainline protestant Southern Baptist political arm of the Christian Nationalist movement. Nelson tells story after story and shows the receipts, documented connections between the CNP, media, corporations (fossil fuel) and government. It's a book you'll have to put down to process and administer self-care. The stories are so horrific and the hypocrisy so brazen, it will take your breath away. But the awful story must be retold and remembered. A must read.
Rich people and their corporations have used hatred of the "other" for seemingly centuries to get what they want. Trans was an easy pick because it can anger the "regular white guys "and the "christians." The last thing that the billionaires want is for us to put together the pieces and unite as a society against them. So we fight a monstrous club of oilmen, christian nationalists, and every other billionaire throwing their money into any government or entity that can stop us.
Supporting people who are different shouldn't be so hard. But, as people are afraid of the unknown, it's easy to point the finger to the smallest percentage of those different people and cry havoc.
If you have a lot of money and nothing better to do with it, then do something useful rather than something that hurts people. Again, no matter how much money people have, we're all the same on the inside. And fear is a powerful motivator, plus having a lot of money to throw around.
These are the same people building climate bunkers in case the world ends so they have someplace to wait it all out. Stupid humans.
“ADF argues that allowing trans girls and women in women’s sports discriminates against cis girls and women.”
Here’s your problem. Most Americans (actually most people the world over) agree with the ADF on that specific point.
It’s very easy to see that boys and men have an inbuilt athletic advantage - it’s about 10% on average. At the top end, it means that high school boys can run a sub-4 minute mile. Meanwhile, do you want to guess how many females have run a sub-4 minute mile?
So if the ADF can get people to agree with something that’s very obvious to almost everyone, it has a huge advantage in trying to persuade people about something which _isnt_ very obvious: the occurrence and effects of climate change.
If you deny the sports point and the wealth of science around it, how do you persuade people you’re right on climate change? You can’t pick and choose the scientific conclusions you back.
This is the cul-de-sac that this rhetoric gets you to: deny the easy science and you lose on the harder stuff.
If the argument is that we have to accept hardships or change behaviour in accepting the science of climate change, then doesn’t that mean some people have to accept hardships or change behaviour over sports too?
You cannot have this both ways. You can’t deny one dollop of science while insisting people accept the other. The ADF gets away with it because the stuff which people can see is easy to comprehend compared to CO2 ppms.
I’m always nonplussed by this contradiction. Science tells us about the world. You can’t deny one chunk of it and insist on the other. While you do, the ADF will only garner success, and we will all lose out.
I find that folks who are really interested in finding ways to dehumanize trans people by, for example, preventing them from participating in sports have other agendas, mainly related to maintaining existing social hierarchies, and perhaps, accelerating the apocalypse.
I think climate change is an immediate danger which needs to be addressed. I think you won't persuade most people of that while you deny obvious human biology to them. That isn't "dehumanising": it's recognising that fundamental human biology, like fundamental climate chemistry and physics, can't be denied. But look, if you want to stick to a policy which makes people think the Democrats have lost their ability to reason, and if you want to demean people who think the climate is a problem, you do you. But don't then expect to win the argument with toxic organisations like the ADF.
Sorry, but your research is out of date and/or flawed. There is research to show boys pre-puberty have athletic advantage over girls in everything from running to throwing to grip strength.
There is ONE sport - ultramarathon - where women *might* have an advantage, though it might equally be due to small cohort effects - fewer men, one exceptional woman.
The “social” argument is nonsense too. How many females have run a sub-4 minute mile? That record was broken in 1953. Plenty of time for social effects to be erased, wouldn’t you say? So, how many females have broken that record which high school boys achieve?
This is why multiple sports (athletics, swimming, cycling, rugby, football, boxing) have specified that male athletes, no matter how medicated, can’t compete in the female category. They have looked at the science.
Again: if you deny the staringly obvious easy science - eg that Lia Thomas had a huge height advantage, was a mediocre swimmer in the male category, did not lose limb length or heart + lung size - then you will lose on the more complex subtle science of climate change. You cannot be the party saying “follow the science!” and then deny the science.
*That* is the failure at the heart of this position. You will *never* win the argument on climate science while you deny the science of humans, because everyone is familiar with the latter.
The fact that different sports have chosen different ways to include trans athletes suggests that no one-size-fits-all approach exists and also that there is no need for politicians to go into debates about trans inclusion in sports. It also shows the shallowness and the malice of the campaign to marginalize trans girls and women in sports, as it tries to overrule independent associations who are indeed working hard to create rules that find the right balance between fair play and inclusion.
It also ends up being anti science as it denies us the empirical data and experience that can help inform rules for trans participation in the future and ignores the fact that most people play sports for the community, not to win (most of the examples of trans girls and women winning have been in amateur sports anyways).
And crucially the campaign against trans people (especially women and girls) extend far beyond sports, which again suggests it’s not a campaign based primarily on science, even if it leans on some shoddy science specifically around trans inclusion in sports. Pointing out that the trans debate is largely a distraction from issues like climate change is a good use of time, since ceding the trans debate wouldn’t lead to a discussion of climate change but rather would just the fossil fuel right throw the next culture war nonsense on us.
Inclusion is simple - you do it by sex, because you can't medicate a male into being a female. Their physiology is different, and everyone who isn't wringing their hands trying to deny biology recognises that. That's why more and more and more sports are following exactly the same path. The "different ways" is just various sports catching up to athletics, swimming, cycling, boxing, football, etc etc.
There have been plenty of studies which have confirmed this point. You don't need more studies to tell you that testosterone at puberty (and before) confers a lasting advantage, and that height, limb length, heart and lung size, skeletal muscle, etc, do not change. So just concede the point on sports. Just stand up and say "yes, fine. We can see what the science says now, that's plenty." And don't get the politicians involved. It was stupid ever to let them stick an oar in. Sports associations have been asleep at the wheel, but those backing policies that are unfair to girls are to blame too. This is a failure of the Democrats' own making.
You're right that the campaign against trans people goes beyond sports - the US military ban is insane - but you need to realise that politics is about credibility. Sports is _such_ an open goal in the culture wars, and it was, and is, frankly stupid to get on the wrong side of it. Once you lose credibility on that part, you can't win it when you point out that throwing people out of the military has no justifiable basis in fact, because you've already lost the undecided listener.
Trans women’s bones don’t shrink. Their hearts and lungs remain the same size. Their skeletal muscle remains. I agree that we can do more research. But I think the null hypothesis based on the simple biological evidence is that advantage is retained and so if we are to continue these studies we should first insist TW remain in the Open category.
My “ideology” was simply shaped by the facts. Ross Tucker, the sports scientist, reached his conclusion (I read the research and agree with him) - because he had to study the topic - in the same way. At first he thought T suppression was enough. Then he realised it did not and could not level the playing field.
Serrano “I’m not interested in sport” ignores the fairness point. Sports are segregated by sex, not identity. Testosterone levels have long ago been abandoned because boys benefit from it pretty much from the womb. The sexes’ physiologies are different.
The four-minute mile point illustrates that there’s an offset: males have a physical advantage. And it doesn’t go away. It’s not about racing against men (which women will do in training). It’s about capability. Again: different physiologies. This doesn’t make women “lesser”, just different and worth celebrating for themselves. But without the intrusion of men.
You’re wrong about sports associations. They’ve mostly included but are now realising the science shows it’s unfair and can be dangerous in contact sports. Also, the Open category exists.
Lia Thomas is a mediocre male swimmer. But Thomas’s inclusion in the team excluded a deserving female swimmer. We don’t know her name. She didn’t get the coveted NCAA competition appearance. That’s unfair because her athletic ability went ignored because of a male who had the normal male advantage of years of testosterone- what would disqualify a female for doping.
Transgender males aren’t excluded from sport at any level. They can still compete - and be measured! - in the male category. That’s where you’d gather the evidence to go against the obvious null hypothesis: that male advantage is retained because we can see that height etc don’t change.
A meta-observation: what you’re doing here in saying “ooh no the science is very complicated but actually it backs my priors” is what gets people who need to be persuaded about climate change to say “nuh-uh” to both propositions. If the position was “sure, TW should compete in the Open category and let’s see what that shows”, that would be scientific. But “let’s assume this is fine and see if the evidence backs us later” is backwards.
The reply to the response is “yes ok but it’s hard”. I’m not arguing they shouldn’t be used as comparators. The respondents say and I’m saying you need matched groups. “These fit females are fitter than these unfit males” is not a finding.
This is the wrong venue for this specific topic. My original point remains: majorities around the world think TW should compete in the M not F category. Any group which pushes on that open door to then promulgate anti-climate claims will get a better hearing among those who don’t follow arguments about 0.1°C and Chinese emissions. If you’re arguing science you can’t pick something people don’t understand while insisting they’re wrong about something they’re very sure they do understand. It’s a losing pitch.
Wonderful investigation and collaboration. I know it said it wasn't peer reviewed but I absolutely believe it is the case that these groups and people are connected because they view it as linked interests. Thank you for the reporting.
I admittedly wouldn't have made the connection between pro-fossil fuel and anti-trans politics. It's a strange brew, seemingly being not wholly tactical and not wholly ideological. Regardless of what the people behind this agenda believe, though, it's a disgusting mix.
The silver lining, as is referenced in the piece, is that intertwining environmental rights and trans rights in this way makes it that much more likely that we can fight back on both fronts. I just hope the majority of climate activists will see it as a collective struggle.
Don't people understand that climate is fundamentally linked to justice and equity for EVERYONE at the core of our efforts?
Unfortunately....they don't!
Anne Nelson's "Shadow Network" documents the rise of the Council for National Policy (CNP), the mainline protestant Southern Baptist political arm of the Christian Nationalist movement. Nelson tells story after story and shows the receipts, documented connections between the CNP, media, corporations (fossil fuel) and government. It's a book you'll have to put down to process and administer self-care. The stories are so horrific and the hypocrisy so brazen, it will take your breath away. But the awful story must be retold and remembered. A must read.
Thank you for sharing!
My son is trans and I'm terrified to read that book...but as you say, I must. Thank you for sharing.
Rich people and their corporations have used hatred of the "other" for seemingly centuries to get what they want. Trans was an easy pick because it can anger the "regular white guys "and the "christians." The last thing that the billionaires want is for us to put together the pieces and unite as a society against them. So we fight a monstrous club of oilmen, christian nationalists, and every other billionaire throwing their money into any government or entity that can stop us.
Supporting people who are different shouldn't be so hard. But, as people are afraid of the unknown, it's easy to point the finger to the smallest percentage of those different people and cry havoc.
If you have a lot of money and nothing better to do with it, then do something useful rather than something that hurts people. Again, no matter how much money people have, we're all the same on the inside. And fear is a powerful motivator, plus having a lot of money to throw around.
These are the same people building climate bunkers in case the world ends so they have someplace to wait it all out. Stupid humans.
“ADF argues that allowing trans girls and women in women’s sports discriminates against cis girls and women.”
Here’s your problem. Most Americans (actually most people the world over) agree with the ADF on that specific point.
It’s very easy to see that boys and men have an inbuilt athletic advantage - it’s about 10% on average. At the top end, it means that high school boys can run a sub-4 minute mile. Meanwhile, do you want to guess how many females have run a sub-4 minute mile?
So if the ADF can get people to agree with something that’s very obvious to almost everyone, it has a huge advantage in trying to persuade people about something which _isnt_ very obvious: the occurrence and effects of climate change.
If you deny the sports point and the wealth of science around it, how do you persuade people you’re right on climate change? You can’t pick and choose the scientific conclusions you back.
This is the cul-de-sac that this rhetoric gets you to: deny the easy science and you lose on the harder stuff.
If the argument is that we have to accept hardships or change behaviour in accepting the science of climate change, then doesn’t that mean some people have to accept hardships or change behaviour over sports too?
You cannot have this both ways. You can’t deny one dollop of science while insisting people accept the other. The ADF gets away with it because the stuff which people can see is easy to comprehend compared to CO2 ppms.
I’m always nonplussed by this contradiction. Science tells us about the world. You can’t deny one chunk of it and insist on the other. While you do, the ADF will only garner success, and we will all lose out.
I find that folks who are really interested in finding ways to dehumanize trans people by, for example, preventing them from participating in sports have other agendas, mainly related to maintaining existing social hierarchies, and perhaps, accelerating the apocalypse.
I think climate change is an immediate danger which needs to be addressed. I think you won't persuade most people of that while you deny obvious human biology to them. That isn't "dehumanising": it's recognising that fundamental human biology, like fundamental climate chemistry and physics, can't be denied. But look, if you want to stick to a policy which makes people think the Democrats have lost their ability to reason, and if you want to demean people who think the climate is a problem, you do you. But don't then expect to win the argument with toxic organisations like the ADF.
Sorry, but your research is out of date and/or flawed. There is research to show boys pre-puberty have athletic advantage over girls in everything from running to throwing to grip strength.
There is ONE sport - ultramarathon - where women *might* have an advantage, though it might equally be due to small cohort effects - fewer men, one exceptional woman.
The “social” argument is nonsense too. How many females have run a sub-4 minute mile? That record was broken in 1953. Plenty of time for social effects to be erased, wouldn’t you say? So, how many females have broken that record which high school boys achieve?
This is why multiple sports (athletics, swimming, cycling, rugby, football, boxing) have specified that male athletes, no matter how medicated, can’t compete in the female category. They have looked at the science.
Again: if you deny the staringly obvious easy science - eg that Lia Thomas had a huge height advantage, was a mediocre swimmer in the male category, did not lose limb length or heart + lung size - then you will lose on the more complex subtle science of climate change. You cannot be the party saying “follow the science!” and then deny the science.
*That* is the failure at the heart of this position. You will *never* win the argument on climate science while you deny the science of humans, because everyone is familiar with the latter.
The fact that different sports have chosen different ways to include trans athletes suggests that no one-size-fits-all approach exists and also that there is no need for politicians to go into debates about trans inclusion in sports. It also shows the shallowness and the malice of the campaign to marginalize trans girls and women in sports, as it tries to overrule independent associations who are indeed working hard to create rules that find the right balance between fair play and inclusion.
It also ends up being anti science as it denies us the empirical data and experience that can help inform rules for trans participation in the future and ignores the fact that most people play sports for the community, not to win (most of the examples of trans girls and women winning have been in amateur sports anyways).
And crucially the campaign against trans people (especially women and girls) extend far beyond sports, which again suggests it’s not a campaign based primarily on science, even if it leans on some shoddy science specifically around trans inclusion in sports. Pointing out that the trans debate is largely a distraction from issues like climate change is a good use of time, since ceding the trans debate wouldn’t lead to a discussion of climate change but rather would just the fossil fuel right throw the next culture war nonsense on us.
Inclusion is simple - you do it by sex, because you can't medicate a male into being a female. Their physiology is different, and everyone who isn't wringing their hands trying to deny biology recognises that. That's why more and more and more sports are following exactly the same path. The "different ways" is just various sports catching up to athletics, swimming, cycling, boxing, football, etc etc.
There have been plenty of studies which have confirmed this point. You don't need more studies to tell you that testosterone at puberty (and before) confers a lasting advantage, and that height, limb length, heart and lung size, skeletal muscle, etc, do not change. So just concede the point on sports. Just stand up and say "yes, fine. We can see what the science says now, that's plenty." And don't get the politicians involved. It was stupid ever to let them stick an oar in. Sports associations have been asleep at the wheel, but those backing policies that are unfair to girls are to blame too. This is a failure of the Democrats' own making.
You're right that the campaign against trans people goes beyond sports - the US military ban is insane - but you need to realise that politics is about credibility. Sports is _such_ an open goal in the culture wars, and it was, and is, frankly stupid to get on the wrong side of it. Once you lose credibility on that part, you can't win it when you point out that throwing people out of the military has no justifiable basis in fact, because you've already lost the undecided listener.
Trans women’s bones don’t shrink. Their hearts and lungs remain the same size. Their skeletal muscle remains. I agree that we can do more research. But I think the null hypothesis based on the simple biological evidence is that advantage is retained and so if we are to continue these studies we should first insist TW remain in the Open category.
My “ideology” was simply shaped by the facts. Ross Tucker, the sports scientist, reached his conclusion (I read the research and agree with him) - because he had to study the topic - in the same way. At first he thought T suppression was enough. Then he realised it did not and could not level the playing field.
I’ll just point out that the Blair Hamilton study has a “rapid response” which points out that it’s comparing totally different groups - very fit females, unfit TW. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/11/586.responses#concerns-regarding-respiratory-data-interpretation-athlete-definition-and-group-matching-in-strength-power-and-aerobic-capacity-of-transgender-athletes-a-cross-sectional-study
It’s a bad study which overclaims.
Serrano “I’m not interested in sport” ignores the fairness point. Sports are segregated by sex, not identity. Testosterone levels have long ago been abandoned because boys benefit from it pretty much from the womb. The sexes’ physiologies are different.
The four-minute mile point illustrates that there’s an offset: males have a physical advantage. And it doesn’t go away. It’s not about racing against men (which women will do in training). It’s about capability. Again: different physiologies. This doesn’t make women “lesser”, just different and worth celebrating for themselves. But without the intrusion of men.
You’re wrong about sports associations. They’ve mostly included but are now realising the science shows it’s unfair and can be dangerous in contact sports. Also, the Open category exists.
Lia Thomas is a mediocre male swimmer. But Thomas’s inclusion in the team excluded a deserving female swimmer. We don’t know her name. She didn’t get the coveted NCAA competition appearance. That’s unfair because her athletic ability went ignored because of a male who had the normal male advantage of years of testosterone- what would disqualify a female for doping.
Transgender males aren’t excluded from sport at any level. They can still compete - and be measured! - in the male category. That’s where you’d gather the evidence to go against the obvious null hypothesis: that male advantage is retained because we can see that height etc don’t change.
A meta-observation: what you’re doing here in saying “ooh no the science is very complicated but actually it backs my priors” is what gets people who need to be persuaded about climate change to say “nuh-uh” to both propositions. If the position was “sure, TW should compete in the Open category and let’s see what that shows”, that would be scientific. But “let’s assume this is fine and see if the evidence backs us later” is backwards.
The reply to the response is “yes ok but it’s hard”. I’m not arguing they shouldn’t be used as comparators. The respondents say and I’m saying you need matched groups. “These fit females are fitter than these unfit males” is not a finding.
This is the wrong venue for this specific topic. My original point remains: majorities around the world think TW should compete in the M not F category. Any group which pushes on that open door to then promulgate anti-climate claims will get a better hearing among those who don’t follow arguments about 0.1°C and Chinese emissions. If you’re arguing science you can’t pick something people don’t understand while insisting they’re wrong about something they’re very sure they do understand. It’s a losing pitch.
Wonderful investigation and collaboration. I know it said it wasn't peer reviewed but I absolutely believe it is the case that these groups and people are connected because they view it as linked interests. Thank you for the reporting.
Also Happy Pride month!