It's both depressing and hilarious what humans are concerned with these days.
I love how you organize and see a deeper level of the polarizing chaos. Applying Haidt's Foundations of Moral Theory to this situation helps us see things more clearly.
This is a brilliant metaphor: "But we may need to give up our search for common ground, to meet each other on higher ground."
I remember when you first shared this, such a complex, well-argued piece.
I keep circling around this idea of the “greater good” when it comes to fairness. We say, “it’s not fair to change the rules for so few people,” and on the surface, that makes sense. But it also reduces the conversation to statistics. It’s not truth, it’s math. It reminds me of that Borges line: “Democracy is an abuse of statistics.” Fairness by numbers gets tricky.
So what exactly is the greater good we’re protecting? Is it fairness, or is it the comfort of the majority, the preservation of cohesion and trust in the system, an illusion of order?
Maybe trans athletes can find fulfillment elsewhere but what does it say when we accept that some dreams are simply off-limits to them? Are we really balancing care and fairness, or just drawing the line where it feels safest to the status quo? That they’re welcome in theory, but not when it counts?
These are just the thoughts that come up as I read. I do agree with much of what you say. it’s just harder to swallow for those getting the raw end of the bargain.
Really powerful piece, Jamie. Thank you for writing it.
Find 5 trans people that agree with your take, or just one or two, maybe then it will be more valid. I have not met any transgender person that feels comfortable talking about their past selves with their former name.
It has to do with the care value. Care for whom? For the trans person reading about themselves being referred to in a way that might be (might not, but usually is) hurtful. For the rest of the trans community reading and empathizing with her.
Using another example, I don't think most people would understand if I talk about Stefani Joanne writing a piano ballad at 13. Most of them would get it if I say Lady Gaga wrote her first song at 13-
Who names her Stefani when talking about her past? She probably doesn't mind being called that. She is just Lady Gaga. Even when people think about her as a kid, it's probably 'what was lady gaga like when she was 4?'
Not memory holing, not pretending her other name didn't exist, just using the name they know her by. The name she uses right now.
'What was Lia like as a kid? Where did she compete before transitioning?'
An alternative to what you wrote:
'As it happens, Lia, before transitioning, swam on our kids' high school team in Austin. It was a stacked team, winning the 6A state championships and sending four kids to Olympic trials (while they were all still in high school). Lia came in 6th in the state. Not bad, but on that team, nowhere near first string.
When she went on to Penn, she swam solid mid-pack performances for three seasons on the men's team before transitioning.'
Tiny changes to your text, no memory holing, not pretending she didn't live as a boy, it respects Lia identity while still referencing that she competed on the men's team. And if Lia (somehow) reads this, she feels her identity was respected.
On the moral values:
Care for Lia and other trans people reading this.
Other benefits:
Woke left doesn't get triggered (don't know if that's actually relevant in any way, but I think its a plus)
Disadvantages?
Maybe TERFS manifesting that Lia wasn't her name back then... They probably wouldn't acknowledge Lia's name right now anyways.
Are there enough trans- people to have separate categories from men and women to compete on a more level playing field? If not now, might this happen later
Jamie, I like the premise of this piece a lot. The crux of the matter for me is:
"But we may need to give up our search for common ground, to meet each other on higher ground."
I would submit that this "higher ground" is something like the ground of Truth in the Platonic sense. The "common ground" that we keep sinking in is our fundamentally different versions of the Good and the Beautiful. There is no higher ground unless we stand on some core universal Truths.
To wit, you and I have many friends who are cultural, technological and financial power players who would vehemently disagree with your putative higher ground:
🌎 This planet (no abandoning our home for space colonies)
🧍These bodies (no uploading ourselves into computers)
⏳ This lifetime (no life extension for a fortunate few)
I happen to agree with you on these being higher ground, but that's not a Haidtian moral stance (for me) as much as a Platonic Truth stance: "All of us, or none of us" as you say. Meaning I don't believe it is True that any of us can survive if those of us with power/money/control strive for a Musk-Kurzweilian Singularity.
Which brings me to the money shot in your article:
"Biological sex, for these critical-gender theorists, is the real construct. (despite millions of years of undeniable x/y reproduction to the contrary)"
All moral systems/philosophies (including Haidt's) depend on there being a non-relativistic Truth/Reality.
The idea that biological sex is a construct is simply not True, and that's the real crux of the matter.
If we can call that spade a spade, in my opinion, you don't have to sacrifice any queens and your arguments for Moves One, Two & Three carry much more weight.
Without a stand for Truth, there is no Good or Beauty.
I enjoyed this the first time you shared it and still think it is one of the most thorough reflections on this issue.
What are your thoughts on introducing hormonal testing into the conversation/regulation of who can compete against whom? I don't think it is THE answer -- as you point out, Lia's size, shape, and strength are factors too. -- but it might be a useful benchmark among others.
I was wondering the same thing. From what I’ve read, a person’s physical constitution doesn’t change significantly for about three years after transitioning. But is there a definitive way to determine, based on hormone levels alone, whether someone is biologically male or female in terms of athletic performance?
I guess my main question is: how do we define fairness in sports when it comes to trans women competing with cisgender women? The challenge is that fairness isn’t a one-size-fits-all concept. Different sports demand different things.
In basketball, for example, height gives players a natural advantage, but we don’t separate tall players from shorter ones. Maybe that’s because it’s a team sport, where skill, strategy, and coordination can balance out physical disparities? But in sports like sprinting or weightlifting, where raw strength and speed determine victory, testosterone exposure before transition could have a lasting impact, making fairness harder to measure.
So, do we set benchmarks for physical attributes? Do we rely purely on hormone levels? Or do we acknowledge that some advantages, whether natural or transition-related, are just part of sports? It’s tricky because fairness itself is a moving target, depending on the sport, the athlete, and the competition.
How do we even begin to define "fair" in this context?
My guess (and hope) is that competent, good-faith folks who have relevant areas of expertise and no axe to grind and who generally agree with Haidt's framework will engage in an ongoing conversation that includes physiology, biology, ethics, specific sport requirements, and other relevant areas.
Ideally they might consider that Parker Palmer's take on "truth" can guide them well: "Truth is an eternal conversation about things that matter, conducted with passion and discipline."
Si, that’s the hope but politics isn’t great at nuance. It thrives on black-and-white thinking, and most people react from projection rather than reflection. I'm thinking of this series Sense8 where Wachowski, the director, explores deep empathy as a form of intelligence. Maybe real wisdom starts with growing that kind of intelligence. Passion and discipline, yes, but also compassion.
Have you ever written about the enormous impact of the cultural narrative of American Patriotism? I’d love a steer to it if you have, and if you haven’t. . .
I wonder what the harm would be in letting her swim with the men? Live your gender any way you like, but to compete at this level you should do so with your biological sex. This feels like a compromise of care and fair, no?
Shouldn't the title be 'Lady swims'? You write that "Refusing to call a trans person by their new name to their face, or when speaking of them post-transition is dickish." Yet you still call her dude.
Picking this thing apart seems like it's absolutely what should be at the forefront of our politics and subtending our time and attention primarily. It's definitely not a symptom of neoliberalism's desperation to find something that is free to use as a rallying cry for progressives. Definitely hasn't backfired. Nothing else they could have got us to support. /s
Thank you for this- great breakdown and removal of the curation of content arguments to find the unmet needs of each group. Glad you are writing about how to find unity!
Great writing! I'm of the opinion that segregating sports by sex is outdated and is from a time when women were considered physically weak and weren't allowed to compete. Now that we are, is there the possibility to group competition categories based on the level of talent, skill and athleticism qualifications? Perhaps it would flood the "lower" tiers with men given the tendency for them to be bigger and naturally develop more muscle...so perhaps part of the qualification is some BMI metric, but certainly there are better ways to segregate competition besides our gender - which will continue to become more fluid.
Time to human-up, for all of us
It's both depressing and hilarious what humans are concerned with these days.
I love how you organize and see a deeper level of the polarizing chaos. Applying Haidt's Foundations of Moral Theory to this situation helps us see things more clearly.
This is a brilliant metaphor: "But we may need to give up our search for common ground, to meet each other on higher ground."
Thanks for your insights Jamie!
Excellently well said Jamie. Thanks for writing and sharing this.
I remember when you first shared this, such a complex, well-argued piece.
I keep circling around this idea of the “greater good” when it comes to fairness. We say, “it’s not fair to change the rules for so few people,” and on the surface, that makes sense. But it also reduces the conversation to statistics. It’s not truth, it’s math. It reminds me of that Borges line: “Democracy is an abuse of statistics.” Fairness by numbers gets tricky.
So what exactly is the greater good we’re protecting? Is it fairness, or is it the comfort of the majority, the preservation of cohesion and trust in the system, an illusion of order?
Maybe trans athletes can find fulfillment elsewhere but what does it say when we accept that some dreams are simply off-limits to them? Are we really balancing care and fairness, or just drawing the line where it feels safest to the status quo? That they’re welcome in theory, but not when it counts?
These are just the thoughts that come up as I read. I do agree with much of what you say. it’s just harder to swallow for those getting the raw end of the bargain.
Really powerful piece, Jamie. Thank you for writing it.
On the * note:
Find 5 trans people that agree with your take, or just one or two, maybe then it will be more valid. I have not met any transgender person that feels comfortable talking about their past selves with their former name.
It has to do with the care value. Care for whom? For the trans person reading about themselves being referred to in a way that might be (might not, but usually is) hurtful. For the rest of the trans community reading and empathizing with her.
Using another example, I don't think most people would understand if I talk about Stefani Joanne writing a piano ballad at 13. Most of them would get it if I say Lady Gaga wrote her first song at 13-
Who names her Stefani when talking about her past? She probably doesn't mind being called that. She is just Lady Gaga. Even when people think about her as a kid, it's probably 'what was lady gaga like when she was 4?'
Not memory holing, not pretending her other name didn't exist, just using the name they know her by. The name she uses right now.
'What was Lia like as a kid? Where did she compete before transitioning?'
An alternative to what you wrote:
'As it happens, Lia, before transitioning, swam on our kids' high school team in Austin. It was a stacked team, winning the 6A state championships and sending four kids to Olympic trials (while they were all still in high school). Lia came in 6th in the state. Not bad, but on that team, nowhere near first string.
When she went on to Penn, she swam solid mid-pack performances for three seasons on the men's team before transitioning.'
Tiny changes to your text, no memory holing, not pretending she didn't live as a boy, it respects Lia identity while still referencing that she competed on the men's team. And if Lia (somehow) reads this, she feels her identity was respected.
On the moral values:
Care for Lia and other trans people reading this.
Other benefits:
Woke left doesn't get triggered (don't know if that's actually relevant in any way, but I think its a plus)
Disadvantages?
Maybe TERFS manifesting that Lia wasn't her name back then... They probably wouldn't acknowledge Lia's name right now anyways.
You witnessed and reported on that complicated situation beautifully. Thank you.
Are there enough trans- people to have separate categories from men and women to compete on a more level playing field? If not now, might this happen later
Jamie, I like the premise of this piece a lot. The crux of the matter for me is:
"But we may need to give up our search for common ground, to meet each other on higher ground."
I would submit that this "higher ground" is something like the ground of Truth in the Platonic sense. The "common ground" that we keep sinking in is our fundamentally different versions of the Good and the Beautiful. There is no higher ground unless we stand on some core universal Truths.
To wit, you and I have many friends who are cultural, technological and financial power players who would vehemently disagree with your putative higher ground:
🌎 This planet (no abandoning our home for space colonies)
🧍These bodies (no uploading ourselves into computers)
⏳ This lifetime (no life extension for a fortunate few)
I happen to agree with you on these being higher ground, but that's not a Haidtian moral stance (for me) as much as a Platonic Truth stance: "All of us, or none of us" as you say. Meaning I don't believe it is True that any of us can survive if those of us with power/money/control strive for a Musk-Kurzweilian Singularity.
Which brings me to the money shot in your article:
"Biological sex, for these critical-gender theorists, is the real construct. (despite millions of years of undeniable x/y reproduction to the contrary)"
All moral systems/philosophies (including Haidt's) depend on there being a non-relativistic Truth/Reality.
The idea that biological sex is a construct is simply not True, and that's the real crux of the matter.
If we can call that spade a spade, in my opinion, you don't have to sacrifice any queens and your arguments for Moves One, Two & Three carry much more weight.
Without a stand for Truth, there is no Good or Beauty.
I enjoyed this the first time you shared it and still think it is one of the most thorough reflections on this issue.
What are your thoughts on introducing hormonal testing into the conversation/regulation of who can compete against whom? I don't think it is THE answer -- as you point out, Lia's size, shape, and strength are factors too. -- but it might be a useful benchmark among others.
I was wondering the same thing. From what I’ve read, a person’s physical constitution doesn’t change significantly for about three years after transitioning. But is there a definitive way to determine, based on hormone levels alone, whether someone is biologically male or female in terms of athletic performance?
I guess my main question is: how do we define fairness in sports when it comes to trans women competing with cisgender women? The challenge is that fairness isn’t a one-size-fits-all concept. Different sports demand different things.
In basketball, for example, height gives players a natural advantage, but we don’t separate tall players from shorter ones. Maybe that’s because it’s a team sport, where skill, strategy, and coordination can balance out physical disparities? But in sports like sprinting or weightlifting, where raw strength and speed determine victory, testosterone exposure before transition could have a lasting impact, making fairness harder to measure.
So, do we set benchmarks for physical attributes? Do we rely purely on hormone levels? Or do we acknowledge that some advantages, whether natural or transition-related, are just part of sports? It’s tricky because fairness itself is a moving target, depending on the sport, the athlete, and the competition.
How do we even begin to define "fair" in this context?
My guess (and hope) is that competent, good-faith folks who have relevant areas of expertise and no axe to grind and who generally agree with Haidt's framework will engage in an ongoing conversation that includes physiology, biology, ethics, specific sport requirements, and other relevant areas.
Ideally they might consider that Parker Palmer's take on "truth" can guide them well: "Truth is an eternal conversation about things that matter, conducted with passion and discipline."
Si, that’s the hope but politics isn’t great at nuance. It thrives on black-and-white thinking, and most people react from projection rather than reflection. I'm thinking of this series Sense8 where Wachowski, the director, explores deep empathy as a form of intelligence. Maybe real wisdom starts with growing that kind of intelligence. Passion and discipline, yes, but also compassion.
Have you ever written about the enormous impact of the cultural narrative of American Patriotism? I’d love a steer to it if you have, and if you haven’t. . .
I wonder what the harm would be in letting her swim with the men? Live your gender any way you like, but to compete at this level you should do so with your biological sex. This feels like a compromise of care and fair, no?
Shouldn't the title be 'Lady swims'? You write that "Refusing to call a trans person by their new name to their face, or when speaking of them post-transition is dickish." Yet you still call her dude.
it's a riff on that old Aerosmith tune, Dude (looks like a lady). so nothing too deeply meant other than matching the structure of the original
Picking this thing apart seems like it's absolutely what should be at the forefront of our politics and subtending our time and attention primarily. It's definitely not a symptom of neoliberalism's desperation to find something that is free to use as a rallying cry for progressives. Definitely hasn't backfired. Nothing else they could have got us to support. /s
Thank you for this- great breakdown and removal of the curation of content arguments to find the unmet needs of each group. Glad you are writing about how to find unity!
Great writing! I'm of the opinion that segregating sports by sex is outdated and is from a time when women were considered physically weak and weren't allowed to compete. Now that we are, is there the possibility to group competition categories based on the level of talent, skill and athleticism qualifications? Perhaps it would flood the "lower" tiers with men given the tendency for them to be bigger and naturally develop more muscle...so perhaps part of the qualification is some BMI metric, but certainly there are better ways to segregate competition besides our gender - which will continue to become more fluid.
Very well done! Thanks for this, Jamie!