>> I’m a tall trans woman with long arms. If I were to play competitive darts, it would be disingenuous of me to claim that my stature doesn’t help me. <<
Would it? I mean, in theory if you have a 20' neck and 30' arms then sure, it helps a ton. Is there data that tall, long-armed cis dudes are better at darts than short, medium-armed cis…
>> I’m a tall trans woman with long arms. If I were to play competitive darts, it would be disingenuous of me to claim that my stature doesn’t help me. <<
Would it? I mean, in theory if you have a 20' neck and 30' arms then sure, it helps a ton. Is there data that tall, long-armed cis dudes are better at darts than short, medium-armed cis dudes? Is there data showing a similar distinction for women?
I mean, if so then sure. You're controlling for the male puberty that everyone insists is so dramatically consequential by only comparing height and arm length to performance **within** biological sex groups, so if the difference exists in both groups then you have to assume until you can get better data that this also affects trans participants of every shape and kind. It would be disingenuous to claim otherwise at that point, at the point where there's relevant but imperfect data. Maybe something about puberty blockers or artificial hormones or whatever would cause trans folks or certain subgroups of trans folks to deviate from the pattern seen among cis folks, but if you have good data on cis folks, assuming it applies to trans folks until proven otherwise is entirely reasonable.
But it's also possible that eyesight and fine motor coordination are much more important than either height or arm length -- at least within the realm of variation humans actually experience. In that case, the effect of height and/or arm length might be swamped to irrelevance.
I go to such detail not because I know that this is true, but because I believe that if you had data showing height and arm length matter, you'd cite it. In the absence of that data, you're simply saying that it's dishonest to say one doesn't believe these provide a sufficient advantage to merit separate competitive categories.
That's not only unwarranted, but IMO it's really kind of dangerous. Trans people are slandered as delusional liars often enough. I don't think it helps to portray people who honestly want to see the data before shunting people into different categories as "disingenuous."
You have a reasonable base position here -- competitive ability categories -- but I'm not sympathetic to the actual argument you're making in favour of your base position.
>> I’m a tall trans woman with long arms. If I were to play competitive darts, it would be disingenuous of me to claim that my stature doesn’t help me. <<
Would it? I mean, in theory if you have a 20' neck and 30' arms then sure, it helps a ton. Is there data that tall, long-armed cis dudes are better at darts than short, medium-armed cis dudes? Is there data showing a similar distinction for women?
I mean, if so then sure. You're controlling for the male puberty that everyone insists is so dramatically consequential by only comparing height and arm length to performance **within** biological sex groups, so if the difference exists in both groups then you have to assume until you can get better data that this also affects trans participants of every shape and kind. It would be disingenuous to claim otherwise at that point, at the point where there's relevant but imperfect data. Maybe something about puberty blockers or artificial hormones or whatever would cause trans folks or certain subgroups of trans folks to deviate from the pattern seen among cis folks, but if you have good data on cis folks, assuming it applies to trans folks until proven otherwise is entirely reasonable.
But it's also possible that eyesight and fine motor coordination are much more important than either height or arm length -- at least within the realm of variation humans actually experience. In that case, the effect of height and/or arm length might be swamped to irrelevance.
I go to such detail not because I know that this is true, but because I believe that if you had data showing height and arm length matter, you'd cite it. In the absence of that data, you're simply saying that it's dishonest to say one doesn't believe these provide a sufficient advantage to merit separate competitive categories.
That's not only unwarranted, but IMO it's really kind of dangerous. Trans people are slandered as delusional liars often enough. I don't think it helps to portray people who honestly want to see the data before shunting people into different categories as "disingenuous."
You have a reasonable base position here -- competitive ability categories -- but I'm not sympathetic to the actual argument you're making in favour of your base position.