Biological males in women's sport

ceadaoin.

wexie wrote: »

I don't suppose you know what they believe the definition should be if not 'adult human female' then no?

Just out of morbid curiosity.

A woman hating doctor who was at the forefront of the campaign to have the billboard removed was on sky news there recently with the aforementioned posie Parker. He didn't say what the definition should be but did accuse women of "appropriating" the term female. We are only allowed to call ourselves whatever men like him say we are apparently.

wexie

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He didn't say what the definition should be but did accuse women of "appropriating" the term female.

Widdershins wrote: »

The last one I heard was ''Anyone who sincerely identifies as a woman''.

Hahaha, you couldn't make this stuff up and if you did nobody would believe you.

haley79

men are better than women at everything

Zorya

haley79 wrote: »

men are better than women at everything

And yet, without women, no men would exist.

wexie

Zorya wrote: »

And yet, without women, no men would exist.

chicken -> egg

egg -> chicken

(although allegedly modern medical science has indeed made it possibly for you women folk to do without us :eek:)

haley79

Zorya wrote: »

And yet, without women, no men would exist.

the woman is the mother of all civilization
the woman is the back bone of every nation

wexie

haley79 wrote: »

the woman is the mother of all civilization
the woman is the back bone of every nation

Zorya

haley79 wrote: »

the woman is the mother of all civilization
the woman is the back bone of every nation

The woman is certainly the mother but the man is also the father, both equally needed. And my position is that adults who feel like identifying as other than their biological gender should feel free and supported to do so - they just cannot insist or make the world agree that they have actually become indistinguishable from their preferred gender. It's just not possible.

Widdershins

Its interesting that a medical doctor can believe biological sex is an irrelevance. It's not irrelevant when it comes to organ transplants, blood donation, and numerous illnesses.

https://twitter.com/dradrianharrop/status/984496786432823297

Zorya wrote: »

yes, I'm aware of most of this, I keep a watching brief, much to my husbands annoyance - he says to me these days, fcuk off if it's another transgender story, I don't care
But I do care.

One of the main instigators of the Woman = Adult Human Female is Posie Parker who is a friend of a friend. She is treated terribly, banned from Twitter, and receives awful hate mail, and sometimes police harrassment, all for saying that a woman means a woman. I would not affiliate myself with her kind of feminism, it's the kind that eats its children, but I admire her overall, her stubborness, her willingness to be public and the ladylike way she says...''Lo and Be-Fcuking-Hold!''

Edit = just adding Posie saying Lo and BefcukingHold haha... happens after a minute or so (at 3.30 ish..)
https://twitter.com/sargesalute/status/1038939100156518400

Yes she's doing great work and the interview with her and Dr. Haddock, I mean Harrop, was fascinating. He was puce in the face and his eyes were bulging but the more they throw at her the firmer she stands.

She's a friend of a friend of mine, too. The mutual friend opened my eyes to all this as she is a journalist and knew about the stories, like the Girl Guides and Helen Watts, before they broke.

Susie Green of Mermaids is very 'interesting' character. She had the police hound Posie for bluntly stating that Green had her 16 year old son (now known as her daughter) castrated in Thailand, but Posie was factually correct. I hope it's ok to say that on Boards? She regularly talks about flying her child to Thailand for 'bottom surgery' so I don't think it's contentious.

Widdershins

klaaaz wrote: »

They were born a baby, not a man. And please elaborate on your view which contradicts what the medical community says on the matter. If you have pints on you, it maybe take longer for you to prove your 'facts'

The medical community don't agree with you on the matter.

Surgeries and hormones are given to bring the person into as close an alignment to their identity as possible and to alleviate gender dysphoria. That's all.

Who are you referring to when you say ''the medical community'' ?

I've just looked through the thread and found your link in response to another user asking the same question. I'm already familiar with the HSE's pages on Gender Dysphoria and there is nothing there confirming your claim that the medical community can alter a person's biological sex.

Franz Von Peppercorn

haley79 wrote: »

men are better than women at everything

Including being women. Amiright?

wexie

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Including being women. Amiright?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Anyway I’ve been thinking about this. Within the law I would say McKinnon has a point. If some women are not to be banned from competition because they have a penis then testosterone shouldn’t be a barrier either.

The problem is with the law not the logic.

YFlyer

klaaaz wrote: »

Think you have it mixed up. Hrt is taken a long time before their actual surgery, with its affects on bones and reduced muscle mass, the poster was discussing what happens post op once hrt is stopped.

Lunges and heart size.

Calhoun

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Anyway I’ve been thinking about this. Within the law I would say McKinnon has a point. If some women are not to be banned from competition because they have a penis then testosterone shouldn’t be a barrier either.

The problem is with the law not the logic.

Lol i get what your saying but looks so strange seeing that written down.

wexie

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Anyway I’ve been thinking about this. Within the law I would say McKinnon has a point. If some women are not to be banned from competition because they have a penis then testosterone shouldn’t be a barrier either.

The problem is with the law not the logic.

ssshhh!!!

the mods might hear you!!

Couldn't say I disagree with you though, I'm not too sure of how the legislation is phrased but I think we're only starting to see the beginning of this.

While I absolutely agree that trans people need to somehow be protected against marginalization, discrimination and so on.

I think perhaps the law might have been implemented with a little more nuance.

(I'm getting really good at this subtlety business )

Widdershins

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

If some women are not to be banned from competition because they have a penis then testosterone shouldn’t be a barrier either.

The problem is with the law not the logic.

I'll get banned again if I say anything contrary to that statement here, won't I? (On what basis, though?I don't fully understand if this is considered a legal issue for boards or the personal opinions of the management?)


This is why the dictionary definition of Woman matters.

I found this interesting, in the ruling of the Judge in the Gay Cake case:

''...The judgment noted: "The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9) and to freedom of expression (article 10) were clearly engaged by this case.

"They include the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold''

wexie

Widdershins wrote: »

I found this interesting, in the ruling of the Judge in the Gay Cake case:

''...The judgment noted: "The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9) and to freedom of expression (article 10) were clearly engaged by this case.

"They include the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold''

Hadn't really thought of it but that is indeed very relevant....

Because that is really what it is isn't it? A belief, not a scientifically proven fact, but a belief.

Zorya

Widdershins wrote: »

I'll get banned again if I say anything contrary to that statement here, won't I? (On what basis, though?I don't fully understand if this is considered a legal issue for boards or the personal opinions of the management?)


This is why the dictionary definition of Woman matters.

I found this interesting, in the ruling of the Judge in the Gay Cake case:

''...The judgment noted: "The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9) and to freedom of expression (article 10) were clearly engaged by this case.

"They include the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold''

I hope you did not actually get banned from Boards at any point for engaging in this issue ?

Anyways - if anyone comes across the utter scutter published by the New york Times 2 days ago regarding transgenderism - ''Anantomy does not determine gender, Experts say'' ....https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/health/transgender-trump-biology.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

...please keep in mind that Dr. Safer, the ''expert'' quoted, is armpit deep in making money out of trans medicalisation at the Mount Sinai gender clinic, is the president of the US Professional Association of Transgender Health, and in the past prescribed Domperidone (no, not a form of champagne!), a hormone banned for human use in the US and used to induce lactation in horses, in order that Dr. Safer could induce lactation in a biological male for the purposes of chest feeding a new born infant.
The article holds that sex is not biological, but that - mysteriously - gender IS. We just have not apparently stumbled upon the hidden biological causes and genetics yet, and all those awkward penises and vaginas present at birth will have to be ignored until we can find the actual biological evidence for how gender is Hard Wired into us.
The NYT is considered the national paper of record in the US.

Widdershins

Zorya wrote: »

I hope you did not actually get banned from Boards at any point for engaging in this issue ?

Anyways - if anyone comes across the utter scutter published by the New york Times 2 days ago regarding transgenderism - ''Anantomy does not determine gender, Experts say'' ....https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/health/transgender-trump-biology.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

...please keep in mind that Dr. Safer, the ''expert'' quoted, is armpit deep in making money out of trans medicalisation at the Mount Sinai gender clinic, is the president of the US Professional Association of Transgender Health, and in the past prescribed Domperidone (no, not a form of champagne!), a hormone banned for human use in the US and used to induce lactation in horses, in order that Dr. Safer could induce lactation in a biological male for the purposes of chest feeding a new born infant.
The article holds that sex is not biological, but that - mysteriously - gender IS. We just have not apparently stumbled upon the hidden biological causes and genetics yet, and all those awkward penises and vaginas present at birth will have to be ignored until we can find the actual biological evidence for how gender is Hard Wired into us.
The NYT is considered the national paper of record in the US.

I was banned and called a d!ck for using the wrong pronoun for Lily Madigan, I think.

Great information!

Zorya

Widdershins wrote: »

I was banned and called a d!ck for using the wrong pronoun for Lily Madigan, I think.

Great information!

Sorry to hear. Called a dick? The irony.... in your misgendering


Edit - on the subject of Lily, I saw this today. Trans women can better speak for women than birth women, because they have broader experience. It's like being on a subtle hallucinogenic trip


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqOy2rOWkAIrdg2.jpg

Widdershins

wexie wrote: »

Hadn't really thought of it but that is indeed very relevant....

Because that is really what it is isn't it? A belief, not a scientifically proven fact, but a belief.

And I feel it is a form of psychological gaslighting to force people to go against their belief based on the evidence of their eyes/ears etc. Especially now it's come down to nothing more than declaring an inner sense of identity or a feeling.

Widdershins

Zorya wrote: »

Sorry to hear. Called a dick? The irony.... in your misgendering


Edit - on the subject of Lily, I saw this today. Trans women can better speak for women than birth women, because they have broader experience. It's like being on a subtle hallucinogenic trip


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqOy2rOWkAIrdg2.jpg

I found this background information interesting. Also, Lily technically misgenders me all the time, by calling my sex class ''cis'' even though lots of women don't want it. https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3096513-to-let-you-know-how-men-use-the-Equality-Act-to-undermine-womens-spaces?fbclid=IwAR2AllB8tCqrpgp9KRoOn_7z4l3tpAnZfl7BAQGC-D-H6xj5GEos7x1VgIk

wexie

Zorya wrote: »

Sorry to hear. Called a dick? The irony.... in your misgendering

Edit - on the subject of Lily, I saw this today. Trans women can better speak for women than birth women, because they have broader experience. It's like being on a subtle hallucinogenic trip

It's absolutely mind boggling how we ended up in a situation where questioning something like that has become frowned upon. Never mind considered discrimination.

Widdershins

wexie wrote: »

It's absolutely mind boggling how we ended up in a situation where questioning something like that has become frowned upon. Never mind considered discrimination.

I'm on edge waiting for a mod or another Boards user to give out. And I don't think I've done anything wrong, but it's the prevailing perception of anyone who doesn't agree with transactivists. This is very important to everyone, not just transgender people, and we should be allowed to speak our mind without upsetting anyone.

Zorya

wexie wrote: »

It's absolutely mind boggling how we ended up in a situation where questioning something like that has become frowned upon. Never mind considered discrimination.

Proper engagement would be far better, civil discourse. I know that the bolshy brazenness of some trans activists raises my heckles so much that I can be unreasonably rude in return, and that's not helpful. There are lots of trans people and gender non-binary persons who hate the crap that is going on in their name - and lots of gay people too.
Dr Debra Soh wrote in Quillette yesterday about the erasure of homosexuality that is happening in some parts of the trans program. It's sad. Like, I don't see why a little boy cannot be completely feminine or a little girl completely masculine without it being suggested to them that they are in the wrong body. It is utterly metaphysically destructive to promote that idea to another human being. These are the bodies we got, if they are healthy and functioning that is a blessing - to assault a healthy body with unnecessary chemicals and surgery seems to me to be nihilistic. To suggest that imagination makes one something different to what one is, is unscientific - sure it would be great! I would have loved to have been really tall, to have a petite nose instead of an oddly nubian one and to able to sing!! But alas...
Let people learn to live with the bigger contradictions - we are capable of vast and often contradictory experience, and have to learn to be that.
https://quillette.com/2018/10/23/the-unspoken-homophobia-propelling-the-transgender-movement-in-children/

ArrBee

Zorya wrote: »

I'm going to go all out there now ...

I have this friend abroad, a philosopher and all round perceptive dude, who suggests that Ireland might be a bit of a test tube for 'progressive' experiments - the very early and very quiet introduction of Self ID for gender could serve as one example of this incremental 'progressivism' promoted in a well-funded economy dependent now on global corporatism. That policy is now being used abroad as an example of how supposedly harmless gender erasure really could be.
And that is what it really amounts to - erasure - no difference between the sexes in the species. All of us can be equally consuming machines. The erasure is generally happening first regarding women though - transmen do not seem to be muscling in so heavily on male spaces, or begging to be in the boxing ring with the lads. Although having said, that there is an argument to be made that male erasure is taking place elsewhere, like in academia, for example.

Anyways, not saying I buy in to such ideas, but our political classes can be embarrassingly light-weight and eager to please outside authorities.

It's all to pave the way for sexless aliens to take over the earth!

Widdershins

Zorya wrote: »

Proper engagement would be far better, civil discourse. I know that the bolshy brazenness of some trans activists raises my heckles so much that I can be unreasonably rude in return, and that's not helpful. There are lots of trans people and gender non-binary persons who hate the crap that is going on in their name - and lots of gay people too.
Dr Debra Soh wrote in Quillette yesterday about the erasure of homosexuality that is happening in some parts of the trans program. It's sad. Like, I don't see why a little boy cannot be completely feminine or a little girl completely masculine without it being suggested to them that they are in the wrong body. It is utterly metaphysically destructive to promote that idea to another human being. These are the bodies we got, if they are healthy and functioning that is a blessing - to assault a healthy body with unnecessary chemicals and surgery seems to me to be nihilistic. To suggest that imagination makes one something different to what one is, is unscientific - sure it would be great! I would have loved to have been really tall, to have a petite nose instead of an oddly nubian one and to able to sing!! But alas...
Let people learn to live with the bigger contradictions - we are capable of vast and often contradictory experience, and have to learn to be that.
https://quillette.com/2018/10/23/the-unspoken-homophobia-propelling-the-transgender-movement-in-children/

I agree but I've personally never seen people uncivilly disagree with transactivists. I've disagreed with some prominent TRA's numerous times (on sex self ID law and the claim that biological sex is a social construct and a birth certificate is ''just a piece of paper'') and I find the civil mask slips and I'm at the receiving end of comments about being choked on their ''lady d*ck'', set on fire, raped, punched in the face. And the same people maintain they are persecuted and bullied and women saying no to them is transphobic. Just my experience.

What bothers me is that those on the TRA side who purport to be interested in reasonable discussion don't accept my/our ''no''. They keep placing the responsibility on women to ''find a solution that accommodates everyone''. That would be ok in one sense, as long as they accepted that the solution won't involve self identified women with male bodies (with no prerequisites or safeguarding/gatekeeping) using vital sex segregated safe spaces. What they're really saying is ''I'll keep repeating myself until you give in/ agree''. It's like a two pronged attack, on the one side there's overt aggression, on the other there's wheedling 'polite' coercion.

It's interesting that men are not obliged to find the solution.

ArrBee

So, if you can become the opposite sex in the eyes of the law by simply stating it. (looking in the mirror and stating your desired sex 3 times maybe?), where does that lead us?

I mean, society loves to label and categorize everything and for good reason mostly.
will we be able to simply deny any or all of it going forward?

"You have a mental health issue".
"no I don't"

"you've been charged with burglary".
"I identify as someone who didn't do it"
"fair enough then, off you go"

"this week, I have been mostly identifying as.... The CEO of a multinational company"

Widdershins

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Btw - if the person in question wishes me to address her as "she, her, etc" then absolutely fine.

I will call her a woman to her face should she ask. I will acknowledge she has the right to "identify" as whatever gender she wishes.

That's a social thing.

You didn't specify whether this applies to any male bodied person who asks you to call them a woman. Can I ask what would happen if the person then expects to use a female only facility and their presence made you uncomfortable? If not you, maybe another natal woman is present and she is uncomfortable/afraid because of their presence? For example this has happened in abused womens shelters in recent months.

I believe this is a polite fiction. If you've participated in a polite fiction to spare the person's feelings, are you confident you can go against that if you need to?

Or would you prefer to keep the polite fiction up regardless of any negative consequences? Would you say the transwoman's rights supersede the natal woman's rights when it comes to the sex based safe space?

Maybe to you it's not a polite fiction, maybe you do believe the person asking to be called a woman must be a real woman in every sense of the word, but how would you square that with the view of the natal woman who does not accept that this person is also a woman?

I'm just trying to explain the problem I have with defining anyone as a woman on the basis of self identification alone.

I have transsexual friends. I am happy to use their chosen female name. I'm prepared to refer to them in feminine terms on the basis that it goes no further than that, but they haven't actually asked anyone to call the a woman. I want them to feel comfortable. They themselves just refer to themselves as Transsexuals or T's for short, not ''women''.