Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

There is only ambiguity in a tiny number of cases. And it is not to 'appease' one individual. It's to ensure the fairness of the competition, similar to how athletes are drug tested. This is all a conflation of the intersex issue with the trans issue anyhow.

They suggested “let’s trust biology, that way there is no ambiguity”, so why would it only apply to sports and not every other context? There’s ambiguity in the number of cases of those tested, but if everyone were subjected to sex testing and not just women in sports, those ambiguities would occur far more frequently. For example -

But critics of the new policy think this method of testing is just as flawed as the one that ensnared Semenya and Soundarajan. Rebecca Jordan-Young, a professor at Barnard College who has studied the effects of testosterone for 15 years, says there's no evidence to suggest that the highest-performing women athletes have hyperandrogenism. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary: At the Atlanta Games in 1996, when all female Olympic athletes were required to submit to gender testing, 1 in 429 were found to have CAIS. That rate among elite female athletes is much higher than in the general population (1 in 20,000-50,000), suggesting that the hormone does not give an advantage.

Caught in the middle


If the poster suggests that we trust biology, then labels like male, female, boy, girl, man, woman, transgender or intersex don’t matter. Biology doesn’t come up with the naming conventions, people do, and so if we’re relying on biology as the standard, there’s going to be an enormous amount of ambiguity if everyone is tested, and not just a small number of women.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

That's been self-evident for a long time Jack!

Not sure what you mean there Cteven, I’ve never made any secret of the fact that while I understand biology, I really don’t care for it all that much. I don’t imagine many people actually do, they’re perfectly happy to settle for what their brain perceives, so why the demand for sex testing? And it would be discrimination if the same standard wasn’t applied to everyone equally, meaning there will be far more people who had always perceived themselves as a particular sex, find out that biology doesn’t coincide with their perception.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The poster was referring to a sporting body asking for a sex test if there is due reason. It is a rarity for such a thing to be required, and again, is somewhat removed from the trans-issue, as it is really only pertains to those who are intersex.

Due to the rarity of it being required, it would be neither of those things. Regardless, all of this, as I've alluded to, doesn't really concern the issue of trans-people (women in particular) in sport.

‘Due reason’ Cteven under the new rules only requires a suspicion that a woman is not a woman, a complaint from another athlete is sufficient to warrant an investigation into another athlete. It’s absolutely not a rarity for sex testing to be required, and it’s more common to require sex testing of female athletes from developing countries. It’s not at all removed from the trans issue because the new testing is based upon hormone levels, not labels. They’re basing the tests on criteria which fit a very narrow definition of who qualifies to participate in women’s events. No such testing or discrimination applies in men’s events in spite of the dominance of Nilotic athletes in the sport -

How One Kenyan Tribe Produces The World's Best Runners

CtevenSrowder

FileNotFound wrote: »

Why not, sure that jenner lad was only a woman a few weeks and won woman of the year.

Let's face it everyone has a set of chromosones that they cannot change. Biological fact.

That's said if someone wishes to identify I will happily change the way I address them etc. And fully support whatever makes them feel happy, it would be wrong if me to impose my view on the world.

For me, sport and a few other bits are better staying chromosones based. Otherwise someone's sport is being imposed upon due to the decision and views of another. Unfair again.

There has to be a non conflict, sensible way to approach this convo. This thread is Definitley not finding it though..

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

all seems reasonable. define by having XX or XY chromosomes seems fine. thats pretty binary expect in a few edge cases coming in at about .000005%.

lets trust the biology

at least that way there is no ambiguity.

does anyone actually have a problem with that? is there any better alternative anyone can offer up?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They suggested “let’s trust biology, that way there is no ambiguity”, so why would it only apply to sports and not every other context? There’s ambiguity in the number of cases of those tested, but if everyone were subjected to sex testing and not just women in sports, those ambiguities would occur far more frequently.

It seems to me that the comments were made with regards to sports.

FileNotFound wrote: »

For example -

But critics of the new policy think this method of testing is just as flawed as the one that ensnared Semenya and Soundarajan. Rebecca Jordan-Young, a professor at Barnard College who has studied the effects of testosterone for 15 years, says there's no evidence to suggest that the highest-performing women athletes have hyperandrogenism. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary: At the Atlanta Games in 1996, when all female Olympic athletes were required to submit to gender testing, 1 in 429 were found to have CAIS. That rate among elite female athletes is much higher than in the general population (1 in 20,000-50,000), suggesting that the hormone does not give an advantage.

Caught in the middle

What has this got to do with the trans-issue? Again, two different things are being conflated. The issue around intersex people is separate, and indeed a very difficult one, but separate none the less.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If the poster suggests that we trust biology, then labels like male, female, boy, girl, man, woman, transgender or intersex don’t matter. Biology doesn’t come up with the naming conventions, people do, and so if we’re relying on biology as the standard, there’s going to be an enormous amount of ambiguity if everyone is tested, and not just a small number of women.

People come up with the naming conventions based off biology. There are humans, two sexes, the one that has breasts, periods, gives birth was referred to as a women. The one that didn't, but produced sperm etc. was called a man. As time went by and our understanding of the nature increased, we were able to give more precise definitions to the words. Biology is the underpinnings of these words.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not sure what you mean there Cteven, I’ve never made any secret of the fact that while I understand biology, I really don’t care for it all that much. I don’t imagine many people actually do, they’re perfectly happy to settle for what their brain perceives, so why the demand for sex testing? And it would be discrimination if the same standard wasn’t applied to everyone equally, meaning there will be far more people who had always perceived themselves as a particular sex, find out that biology doesn’t coincide with their perception.

We do rely on biology as the standard, there are plenty of seemingly very similar species (to the eye) that are in fact quite different. We only know this as a result of the biology of the species involved. You may not care about biology, but that just shows the ridiculousness of your position.

Very many people do care for science and by extension biology, as there are many people very interested in how things actually are, as opposed to how we may perceive them to be. Or put another way, there are many people interested in the truth.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

‘Due reason’ Cteven under the new rules only requires a suspicion that a woman is not a woman, a complaint from another athlete is sufficient to warrant an investigation into another athlete. It’s absolutely not a rarity for sex testing to be required, and it’s more common to require sex testing of female athletes from developing countries. It’s not at all removed from the trans issue because the new testing is based upon hormone levels, not labels. They’re basing the tests on criteria which fit a very narrow definition of who qualifies to participate in women’s events. No such testing or discrimination applies in men’s events in spite of the dominance of Nilotic athletes in the sport -

How One Kenyan Tribe Produces The World's Best Runners

Simply put Jack, if they prove someone is a male then they should not be competing with women. Sex testing is not so ambiguous that this cannot be done. The issue surrounding intersex people is a challenging one, but it is a separate one nonetheless.

The criteria for one being tested is irrelevant to the discussion, maybe it should be changed, maybe it shouldn't.

FileNotFound

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It seems to me that the comments were made with regards to sports.


What has this got to do with the trans-issue? Again, two different things are being conflated. The issue around intersex people is separate, and indeed a very difficult one, but separate none the less.


People come up with the naming conventions based off biology. There are humans, two sexes, the one that has breasts, periods, gives birth was referred to as a women. The one that didn't, but produced sperm etc. was called a man. As time went by and our understanding of the nature increased, we were able to give more precise definitions to the words. Biology is the underpinnings of these words.


We do rely on biology as the standard, there are plenty of seemingly very similar species (to the eye) that are in fact quite different. We only know this as a result of the biology of the species involved. You may not care about biology, but that just shows the ridiculousness of your position.

Very many people do care for science and by extension biology, as there are many people very interested in how things actually are, as opposed to how we may perceive them to be. Or put another way, there are many people interested in the truth.




Simply put Jack, if they prove someone is a male then they should not be competing with women. Sex testing is not so ambiguous that this cannot be done. The issue surrounding intersex people is a challenging one, but it is a separate one nonetheless.

The criteria for one being tested is irrelevant to the discussion, maybe it should be changed, maybe it shouldn't.

The reason I bring up sport - is because I think this actually creates a confusion on many of the gender issues.

Lots of people use sport as an example of not accepting. At least that's how I have often read it. All I am trying to do is see if we can separate issue.

Playing a game for example is a choice, the game has predefined rules. Therefor I my mind it is above and beyond any identification issues as the choice is always there not to play. Not happy make a new sport. Women and men have separate teams as its actually fair to do so.

Living and how you feel is not a choice. So we should all be more understanding and be accepting of others wishes.

I dunno, the point I was making is that if we make acceptance and overarching issue to cover all - then it will run into areas where forcing acceptance is its self inherently wrong. And people will use these to just not accept fulls stop.

Seems all the new definitions (to have or not to have a cervix etc.) have created upset in other groups. That's not fair either.

The worlds not fair. Nothing is ever perfect.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It seems to me that the comments were made with regards to sports.

And I said that it should apply in all contexts. I didn’t imagine you would object to that given you’re always so keen to protect women’s spaces like prisons, domestic violence shelters and bathrooms. Would a urine test be sufficient in your expert opinion in order to determine which bathroom a person should use? Or will you be requiring blood and saliva samples too? Just to remove as much ambiguity as possible.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What has this got to do with the trans-issue? Again, two different things are being conflated. The issue around intersex people is separate, and indeed a very difficult one, but separate none the less.

We’re way past just trans and intersex issues now. The term intersex is something of a misnomer btw, they’re either one sex or the other with developmental sex disorders of varying degrees. We’re now at the point where everyone in the population has to submit to sex testing in order to determine their rights based upon their sex status. If your goal is no ambiguity, and keeping women safe, then this standard sex testing shouldn’t be an issue for you if you’re willing to suggest it should be forced upon anyone else!

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

People come up with the naming conventions based off biology. There are humans, two sexes, the one that has breasts, periods, gives birth was referred to as a women. The one that didn't, but produced sperm etc. was called a man. As time went by and our understanding of the nature increased, we were able to give more precise definitions to the words. Biology is the underpinnings of these words.

People came up with words based upon their observations of the natural world. What started out as philosophy developed into different systematic disciplines such as biology, chemistry, physics, etc, with plenty of crossover in among them. What you’re talking about is just one classification system, the one that suits your purposes, but in the field of biology there are many more. It’s why the idea of sex isn’t just determined by a binary system any more, but rather by a number of different criteria. This might interest you if you’re not aware that human males have breasts too btw.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

We do rely on biology as the standard, there are plenty of seemingly very similar species (to the eye) that are in fact quite different. We only know this as a result of the biology of the species involved. You may not care about biology, but that just shows the ridiculousness of your position.

Very many people do care for science and by extension biology, as there are many people very interested in how things actually are, as opposed to how we may perceive them to be. Or put another way, there are many people interested in the truth.

Good for you Cteven, so when are you submitting yourself for sex testing then? You’re so interested in the truth I’d imagine it’s number one on your priority list of things you give a shìt about. When was the last time you asked anyone to submit to a sex test before you had sex with them? Or was the truth not important then?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Simply put Jack, if they prove someone is a male then they should not be competing with women. Sex testing is not so ambiguous that this cannot be done. The issue surrounding intersex people is a challenging one, but it is a separate one nonetheless.

The criteria for one being tested is irrelevant to the discussion, maybe it should be changed, maybe it shouldn't.

The criteria for one being tested is absolutely fundamental to the discussion? It’s what the whole discussion is about - determining someone’s rights based upon their sex, and how the WA test for that as it pertains to women’s sports is by measuring the levels of hormones in individual athletes. They have effectively done an end-run around the question of intersex or transgender people in women’s sports by using a testing standard which is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways.

At least they don’t have to address the issue of men participating in women’s sports when they set the qualifying criteria so low that it also excludes elite athletes who are women. I’m asking where are the objections and claims of an unfair biological advantage Nilotic athletes have over their competition if the goal is fair competition and not just perpetuating discrimination based upon prejudiced stereotypes, as opposed to biology? Sex testing is what uncovers ambiguities, and that’s why it’s advocates aren’t too keen on undergoing it themselves - they’re terrified of what they may discover about themselves.

Mic 1972

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You couldn’t be more wrong. Apart from that, I’d have massive problems with some nobody requesting I submit to a sex test just to appease them, they’d need a damn good reason beyond just their own satisfaction.

No, I’ll go with Irish law on this one, I don’t actually give a shìt about biology. I’ve never asked anyone to submit themselves to sex testing before now and I’ve never had an issue with treating anyone according to how they choose to present themselves.

And that’s apart from the complete impracticality and expense of your suggestion. I don’t imagine you’ll be willing to pay for testing.

that's a good summary of the current identity culture.
People are equal in terms of rights, however they are biologically different. Biology is not an opinion, it's a fact

One eyed Jack

Mic 1972 wrote: »

that's a good summary of the current identity culture.
People are equal in terms of rights, however they are biologically different. Biology is not an opinion, it's a fact

It’s actually quite the opposite of identity culture, which is also something I don’t care too much for. There are plenty of people who would disagree with you that people are equal in terms of rights, as they claim their rights are being infringed upon by other people having equal rights.

I’d also disagree with your trite comment about biology, it’s a discipline which is fundamentally based upon a consensus of opinion.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You couldn’t be more wrong. Apart from that, I’d have massive problems with some nobody requesting I submit to a sex test just to appease them, they’d need a damn good reason beyond just their own satisfaction.

No, I’ll go with Irish law on this one, I don’t actually give a shìt about biology. I’ve never asked anyone to submit themselves to sex testing before now and I’ve never had an issue with treating anyone according to how they choose to present themselves.

And that’s apart from the complete impracticality and expense of your suggestion. I don’t imagine you’ll be willing to pay for testing.

How easy it is for a man not to give a **** about biology and to give away women's sports. What exactly have men got to lose here?
https://twitter.com/LabelFreeBrands/status/1354753411879583744?s=20

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

How easy it is for a man not to give a **** about biology and to give away women's sports. What exactly have men got to lose here?

Feckall to do with my being a man, there are many more women who don’t share your opinions than men in any case. What opportunities or rights are you or any woman being denied? None. You’re free to participate in sports and that right hasn’t been taken from you. No individual ever had the right to make determinations about any other individuals rights. That would be making up rights you imagine you should have, which has no standing in law.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And I said that it should apply in all contexts. I didn’t imagine you would object to that given you’re always so keen to protect women’s spaces like prisons, domestic violence shelters and bathrooms. Would a urine test be sufficient in your expert opinion in order to determine which bathroom a person should use? Or will you be requiring blood and saliva samples too? Just to remove as much ambiguity as possible.

So you are just straw-manning then. Ok. At least you acknowledge that the original OP's were referring to sports.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We’re way past just trans and intersex issues now. The term intersex is something of a misnomer btw, they’re either one sex or the other with developmental sex disorders of varying degrees. We’re now at the point where everyone in the population has to submit to sex testing in order to determine their rights based upon their sex status. If your goal is no ambiguity, and keeping women safe, then this standard sex testing shouldn’t be an issue for you if you’re willing to suggest it should be forced upon anyone else!

No, you are passed that. I have consistently stated they are two separate issues that you are conflating. You are debating yourself here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People came up with words based upon their observations of the natural world. What started out as philosophy developed into different systematic disciplines such as biology, chemistry, physics, etc, with plenty of crossover in among them. What you’re talking about is just one classification system, the one that suits your purposes, but in the field of biology there are many more. It’s why the idea of sex isn’t just determined by a binary system any more, but rather by a number of different criteria. This might interest you if you’re not aware that human males have breasts too btw.

Yes and those observations showed clear distinctions between men and women, females and males. We have now managed to give rigorous definitions. I see you are sticking to your tactic of linking irrelevance.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Good for you Cteven, so when are you submitting yourself for sex testing then? You’re so interested in the truth I’d imagine it’s number one on your priority list of things you give a shìt about. When was the last time you asked anyone to submit to a sex test before you had sex with them? Or was the truth not important then?

You are absolutely correct. I have no issue with doing such a thing, but unfortunately I have not got the money to get a sex-test at the moment, and never had. Things are tight and always have been. A bit like how'd I'd love to know my ancestry in detail actually.

I get you are more a people person and science isn't your thing, but you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The criteria for one being tested is absolutely fundamental to the discussion? It’s what the whole discussion is about - determining someone’s rights based upon their sex, and how the WA test for that as it pertains to women’s sports is by measuring the levels of hormones in individual athletes. They have effectively done an end-run around the question of intersex or transgender people in women’s sports by using a testing standard which is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways.

Ok, as I said, the test may be flawed, it may not be, it is still not reason to allow males to compete with females. It is a side issue with regards to that main issue. We'd have to first agree to not allow it to happen before we can start discussing how to prevent it from happening. Unfortunately, we do not agree on the former yet.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At least they don’t have to address the issue of men participating in women’s sports when they set the qualifying criteria so low that it also excludes elite athletes who are women. I’m asking where are the objections and claims of an unfair biological advantage Nilotic athletes have over their competition if the goal is fair competition and not just perpetuating discrimination based upon prejudiced stereotypes, as opposed to biology? Sex testing is what uncovers ambiguities, and that’s why it’s advocates aren’t too keen on undergoing it themselves - they’re terrified of what they may discover about themselves.

You've got no basis to say that at all, not that it'll ever stop you.

Girly Gal

Perhaps the solution to transwomen in individual sports is that they can participate with women, but, not be eligible to win any honours, so, the highest placed biological woman wins the race regardless if a transwoman crosses the line first. It's not a perfect solution, but, at least it wouldn't deny anyone the chance to participate and biological women would still be rewarded.
Team sports would be different, perhaps putting a limit of one transwoman per team.
For both individual and team sports transwomen should have to meet certain criteria or reached a certain stage in their transition, e.g. X amount of time on hormones and living as a woman, etc., before being allowed participate in women's sport.

Smacruairi

Girly Gal wrote: »

Perhaps the solution to transwomen in individual sports is that they can participate with women, but, not be eligible to win any honours, so, the highest placed biological woman wins the race regardless if a transwoman crosses the line first. It's not a perfect solution, but, at least it wouldn't deny anyone the chance to participate and biological women would still be rewarded.
Team sports would be different, perhaps putting a limit of one transwoman per team.
For both individual and team sports transwomen should have to meet certain criteria or reached a certain stage in their transition, e.g. X amount of time on hormones and living as a woman, etc., before being allowed participate in women's sport.

1. So if there are 8 lanes, she is bopping someone out of the race... Even though she can't win... Nah sorry.
2. Limit of 1 tw per team in team sports? So 20% of the team in basketball? They'll still end up injuring other players owing to the vast biological advantages they have... And why 1.why not 2?or3? Nah sorry.
3. Levels of hormones? Sure puberty alone bestows the advantage, let alone all the years after that. Are you now saying every sports star has to be tested?

Let's go with something really simple. So simple it has worked amazingly well until now.... Men can't compete in women's sports. Done. Simple. If women want to try in men's as they're so good they can overcome biology, sure, off you go, but if you are born a boy, sorry, no women's sports for you as its biologically cheating.

The same way if you're 18 you can't play under 18 games, if you're born a man you can't compete in women's sports. Next.

FileNotFound

Smacruairi wrote: »

1. So if there are 8 lanes, she is bopping someone out of the race... Even though she can't win... Nah sorry.
2. Limit of 1 tw per team in team sports? So 20% of the team in basketball? They'll still end up injuring other players owing to the vast biological advantages they have... And why 1.why not 2?or3? Nah sorry.
3. Levels of hormones? Sure puberty alone bestows the advantage, let alone all the years after that. Are you now saying every sports star has to be tested?

Let's go with something really simple. So simple it has worked amazingly well until now.... Men can't compete in women's sports. Done. Simple. If women want to try in men's as they're so good they can overcome biology, sure, off you go, but if you are born a boy, sorry, no women's sports for you as its biologically cheating.

The same way if you're 18 you can't play under 18 games, if you're born a man you can't compete in women's sports. Next.

It is hard to argue with that blunt thought, just like it was hard to argue to world was round at one point.

Just winding 😉

Girly Gal

Smacruairi wrote: »

1. So if there are 8 lanes, she is bopping someone out of the race... Even though she can't win... Nah sorry.
2. Limit of 1 tw per team in team sports? So 20% of the team in basketball? They'll still end up injuring other players owing to the vast biological advantages they have... And why 1.why not 2?or3? Nah sorry.
3. Levels of hormones? Sure puberty alone bestows the advantage, let alone all the years after that. Are you now saying every sports star has to be tested?

Let's go with something really simple. So simple it has worked amazingly well until now.... Men can't compete in women's sports. Done. Simple. If women want to try in men's as they're so good they can overcome biology, sure, off you go, but if you are born a boy, sorry, no women's sports for you as its biologically cheating.

The same way if you're 18 you can't play under 18 games, if you're born a man you can't compete in women's sports. Next.

Just some ideas to allow participation, not saying it's perfect and each sport would have to decide on the criteria or number allowed on teams as teams vary depending on the sport, as you say basketball has only 5, but, rugby 15.
I'm not saying the proposals would work, but, some comprise will have to be reached, mainly from transpeople if they want to participate in sport.
It's not reasonable to expect transwomen to compete against men and also a new category where only transwomen compete against each other wouldn't work as the numbers are too few. Personally I don't think transwomen should be allowed participate in elite women's sport, but, only at amateur level.

Gruffalux

Girly Gal wrote: »

Perhaps the solution to transwomen in individual sports is that they can participate with women, but, not be eligible to win any honours, so, the highest placed biological woman wins the race regardless if a transwoman crosses the line first. It's not a perfect solution, but, at least it wouldn't deny anyone the chance to participate and biological women would still be rewarded.
Team sports would be different, perhaps putting a limit of one transwoman per team.
For both individual and team sports transwomen should have to meet certain criteria or reached a certain stage in their transition, e.g. X amount of time on hormones and living as a woman, etc., before being allowed participate in women's sport.

One of the things though is potential psychological impact. I can understand you are looking for solutions that are kind and I appreciate that.
But if you look at the video up above if girls are running and hurdling super hard and trying to do the utmost best, as physically great as their biology and demanding training can possibly allow them to be, it is quite psychologically impactful to have a large lad like that the other competitor streak away from the group at the starting gun and literally leave them in the dust.

There may come a time soon that there could be trans leagues. That would be better.

Smacruairi

Girly Gal wrote: »

.
It's not reasonable to expect transwomen to compete against men l.

Why? Seriously, why. They were born men, they don't feel like men but they were born with all the benefits imbued. You want to radically alter a system which has worked so well because...?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I get you are more a people person and science isn't your thing, but you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

I can hardly be accused of dismissing science when the evidence you’ve put forward so far could hardly be considered scientific. It appears to be based entirely upon your own perception, which is fine, but it’s not a reasonable basis to deny people equal rights in law.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ok, as I said, the test may be flawed, it may not be, it is still not reason to allow males to compete with females. It is a side issue with regards to that main issue. We'd have to first agree to not allow it to happen before we can start discussing how to prevent it from happening. Unfortunately, we do not agree on the former yet.

Oh it’s flawed alright, it’s deeply flawed, because as I already pointed out - it excludes women from developing countries from competing, to the degree that the WA may as well call women’s athletics “mediocre entertainment for Caucasians, sponsored by Nike”. It’s a fundamental issue because it will determine who is qualified to participate in any given event In sports. Side issues which you and anyone else who claims to care about women’s participation in sports are the fact that women are already treated like shìt by sponsors like Nike, not a peep about those issues though?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You've got no basis to say that at all, not that it'll ever stop you.

Of course I do, I’ve met with enough people who are of the opinion that they shouldn’t have to undergo sex testing because it’s a violation of their human rights, but they appear to have no issues with suggesting that other people should be forced to undergo sex testing. The human rights argument is nothing more than a smokescreen for the fact that they’re fully aware that the results of the test might turn their world on its head, especially if the results were made public, as is often the case with female athletes who are forced to undergo sex testing in order to compete in women’s sports.

Vic_08

Girly Gal wrote: »

Just some ideas to allow participation, not saying it's perfect and each sport would have to decide on the criteria or number allowed on teams as teams vary depending on the sport, as you say basketball has only 5, but, rugby 15.
I'm not saying the proposals would work, but, some comprise will have to be reached, mainly from transpeople if they want to participate in sport.
It's not reasonable to expect transwomen to compete against men and also a new category where only transwomen compete against each other wouldn't work as the numbers are too few. Personally I don't think transwomen should be allowed participate in elite women's sport, but, only at amateur level.

If you allow inclusion in amateur but not professional then accusations of discrimination would be inevitable, it would also be unfair on any trans-women who had prospects of turning professional in mens category if they had been in women amateur leagues.

For contact sports the issue of injury is just as prevalent in amateur sports, often due to the lower skill levels more so.

I get that you are looking for some middle ground that would make everyone happy, but it is just not going to work, not only is it gong to solidify the current problems it will never be enough for the extremists who will use it as a tool to push for their fantasy of m-f trans based on nothing more than their own declaration being indivisible from real women in any way.

Girly Gal

Gruffalux wrote: »

One of the things though is potential psychological impact. I can understand you are looking for solutions that are kind and I appreciate that.
But if you look at the video up above if girls are running and hurdling super hard and trying to do the utmost best, as physically great as their biology and demanding training can possibly allow them to be, it is quite psychologically impactful to have a large lad like that the other competitor streak away from the group at the starting gun and literally leave them in the dust.

There may come a time soon that there could be trans leagues. That would be better.

That's a good point about the psychological impact. I was really only referring to adult sports not underage sports, from the video it doesn't really look like that lad is long into transition and is a good example that trans athletes shouldn't compete at under age level in their preferred gender, but, only in their biological sex.

Vic_08

Gruffalux wrote: »

One of the things though is potential psychological impact. I can understand you are looking for solutions that are kind and I appreciate that.
But if you look at the video up above if girls are running and hurdling super hard and trying to do the utmost best, as physically great as their biology and demanding training can possibly allow them to be, it is quite psychologically impactful to have a large lad like that the other competitor streak away from the group at the starting gun and literally leave them in the dust.

Considering how much time and resources there have been put in to promote participation in women's sports over the last decade, the idea that essentially male ringers should be allowed increasingly dominate these sports would inevitably reduce participation from actual women and girls.

Gruffalux wrote: »

There may come a time soon that there could be trans leagues. That would be better.

If and when that happens, much of the same topics will have to be tackled as physically weaker trans who have had a lifetime of medical intervention end up being pummelled by the male sport also-ran ringers whose only claim to trans status is self-ID.

Girly Gal

If and when that happens, much of the same topics will have to be tackled as physically weaker trans who have had a lifetime of medical intervention end up being pummelled by the male sport also-ran ringers whose only claim to trans status is self-ID.[/QUOTE]

I think this is one of the main problems for the trans community both regarding sport and everyday life.There are always as you say " ringers" willing to exploit any loophole which results in genuine trans people and women losing out.

Smacruairi

Girly Gal wrote: »

If and when that happens, much of the same topics will have to be tackled as physically weaker trans who have had a lifetime of medical intervention end up being pummelled by the male sport also-ran ringers whose only claim to trans status is self-ID.

trans people and women losing out.[/quote]

How are trans losing out? They can still compete with men, which is what they were born as?

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can hardly be accused of dismissing science when the evidence you’ve put forward so far could hardly be considered scientific. It appears to be based entirely upon your own perception, which is fine, but it’s not a reasonable basis to deny people equal rights in law.

Scientific evidence with regards to what? The difference between men and women? Even someone who cares as little about biology but still 'understands' it shouldn't require such evidence.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh it’s flawed alright, it’s deeply flawed, because as I already pointed out - it excludes women from developing countries from competing, to the degree that the WA may as well call women’s athletics “mediocre entertainment for Caucasians, sponsored by Nike”. It’s a fundamental issue because it will determine who is qualified to participate in any given event In sports. Side issues which you and anyone else who claims to care about women’s participation in sports are the fact that women are already treated like shìt by sponsors like Nike, not a peep about those issues though?

Ok, lets say it's flawed. It's still irrelevant to the discussion as to whether males should compete against women. The first step is acknowledging they shouldn't. The next step, well, what does it matter, we haven't even gotten to the first step.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course I do, I’ve met with enough people who are of the opinion that they shouldn’t have to undergo sex testing because it’s a violation of their human rights, but they appear to have no issues with suggesting that other people should be forced to undergo sex testing. The human rights argument is nothing more than a smokescreen for the fact that they’re fully aware that the results of the test might turn their world on its head, especially if the results were made public, as is often the case with female athletes who are forced to undergo sex testing in order to compete in women’s sports.

I'm sure you have alright.

Girly Gal

Smacruairi wrote: »

trans people and women losing out.

How are trans losing out? They can still compete with men, which is what they were born as?[/QUOTE]

I wasn't just referring to sport, but, everyday life too. Genuine trans people, who go through transition which is a difficult process and something no one would ideally have to go through get lumped in with people who self ID and make absolutely no effort to transition. It's also the ones who self ID who are more likely to make the headlines and give transpeople a bad name.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Feckall to do with my being a man, there are many more women who don’t share your opinions than men in any case. What opportunities or rights are you or any woman being denied? None. You’re free to participate in sports and that right hasn’t been taken from you. No individual ever had the right to make determinations about any other individuals rights. That would be making up rights you imagine you should have, which has no standing in law.

Of course it has NOTHING to do with you being male with absolutely nothing to lose, silly me. I'm not seeing many of those women here agreeing with you.

The opportunity to compete FAIRLY in sports with other WOMEN - the women who have not gone through a male puberty is a major help.
The right for young American women not to have college scholarships won by trans 'girls' e.g. CeCe Telfer.
The right for women and girls not to be seriously injured by male bodied trans identifying males, as has already happened.
The right not to share changing areas with naked trans identiying males.

Outside of sports:
The right not to have a trans identifying male perform a cervical smear on me.
The right not to have a trans identifying male examine me after a rape.
The right not to have to share a hospital ward/room with a trans identifying male.
The right for female prisoners not to have to share prison space with trans identifying males who in addition to being male are probably violent and/or sexual offenders.
The right for lesbians and gay men to clearly say they will never have a sexual interest in a trans identified person as they are of the opposite SEX without being called a transphobic bigot and of course a TERF for the lesbians - a favorite I believe. It is homophobic to tell people they can/should be attracted to the opposite sex. The trans identifying male might be the nicest person alive but a lesbian will never sleep with them if they are actually a lesbian and have not been persuaded that it's the 'right' thing to do.

I don't care how many times you go on about Irish law blah, blah. Signing a piece of paper does not change your biology. A law made in haste on the tailwind of the same sex marriage referendum.

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

Of course it has NOTHING to do with you being male with absolutely nothing to lose, silly me. I'm not seeing many of those women here agreeing with you.

I’ve already provided evidence of plenty who do, earlier in the thread, not to mention the numerous national and international women’s organisations who not just agree with me, but also campaign for equality for people who are transgender, and provide healthcare for people who are transgender. The fact that you don’t appear to be aware of their existence isn’t the least bit surprising.

ingalway wrote: »

The opportunity to compete FAIRLY in sports with other WOMEN - the women who have not gone through a male puberty is a major help.
The right for young American women not to have college scholarships won by trans 'girls' e.g. CeCe Telfer.
The right for women and girls not to be seriously injured by male bodied trans identifying males, as has already happened.
The right not to share changing areas with naked trans identiying males.

All of the above are rights you’ve just made up? They don’t actually exist, and attempting to deny other people equal rights won’t bring them into existence.

ingalway wrote: »

Outside of sports:
The right not to have a trans identifying male perform a cervical smear on me.
The right not to have a trans identifying male examine me after a rape.
The right not to have to share a hospital ward/room with a trans identifying male.
The right for female prisoners not to have to share prison space with trans identifying males who in addition to being male are probably violent and/or sexual offenders.
The right for lesbians and gay men to clearly say they will never have a sexual interest in a trans identified person as they are of the opposite SEX without being called a transphobic bigot and of course a TERF for the lesbians - a favorite I believe. It is homophobic to tell people they can/should be attracted to the opposite sex. The trans identifying male might be the nicest person alive but a lesbian will never sleep with them if they are actually a lesbian and have not been persuaded that it's the 'right' thing to do.

This is just more made up rights which don’t actually exist, same as the above applies already.

ingalway wrote: »

I don't care how many times you go on about Irish law blah, blah. Signing a piece of paper does not change your biology. A law made in haste on the tailwind of the same sex marriage referendum.

Clearly. However it has never been argued by me at least that a gender recognition certificate has any impact whatsoever on biology. The legislation was not enacted in haste on the tailwind of the marriage equality referendum either. You don’t have to care what I say about Irish law, but it doesn’t follow that I wouldn’t care that you’re peddling nonsense because you haven’t a clue of the history of the Act which goes back as far as 1997 in Ireland when Lydia Foy began legal proceedings against the State. It took the State another 18 years before the Gender Recognition Act was enacted to fcukall fanfare and grimacing by the then Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton.

“A law made in haste” my arse :pac:

One eyed Jack

So this morning it’s being reported in Pinknews that ’Gender critical feminist’ Posie Parker wants men with guns to start using women’s toilets, and I figured they had to be misrepresenting what she said or taking it out of context. Apparently not.

But what was more interesting, to me at least (came across it while trying to get a broader context for the above now deleted video), and in keeping with the theme of the thread, ‘Gender Identity in Modern Ireland’, was her interview with an Irish woman and her opinions on gender identity in modern Ireland. The interview for the most part is good, the woman knows her history even if I don’t agree with everything she says, but the last five minutes of the interview were something of a let-down when Ms. de Brun is asked the Irish word for gender -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GImD4aEqK2I

The Irish word for gender is ‘inscne’, but it gets even better - the Irish language only has two genders. It’s a concept called grammatical gender, which has nothing to do with biological sex -

For the most part, however, “gender” in language has nothing to do with biological sex. In fact, some Irish words that you’d assume would be masculine (stail , for example: “stallion”) are actually grammatically feminine, and vice versa.

Didn’t occur to me before now because I do all my thinking in Irish anyway, and translate to other languages, so the idea of language itself being gendered in that way is a bit of a “mind blown” moment this morning I figure was worth sharing

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So this morning it’s being reported in Pinknews that ’Gender critical feminist’ Posie Parker wants men with guns to start using women’s toilets, and I figured they had to be misrepresenting what she said or taking it out of context. Apparently not.

But what was more interesting, to me at least (came across it while trying to get a broader context for the above now deleted video), and in keeping with the theme of the thread, ‘Gender Identity in Modern Ireland’, was her interview with an Irish woman and her opinions on gender identity in modern Ireland. The interview for the most part is good, the woman knows her history even if I don’t agree with everything she says, but the last five minutes of the interview were something of a let-down when Ms. de Brun is asked the Irish word for gender -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GImD4aEqK2I

The Irish word for gender is ‘inscne’, but it gets even better - the Irish language only has two genders. It’s a concept called grammatical gender, which has nothing to do with biological sex -

For the most part, however, “gender” in language has nothing to do with biological sex. In fact, some Irish words that you’d assume would be masculine (stail , for example: “stallion”) are actually grammatically feminine, and vice versa.

Didn’t occur to me before now because I do all my thinking in Irish anyway, and translate to other languages, so the idea of language itself being gendered in that way is a bit of a “mind blown” moment this morning I figure was worth sharing

The Irish for gender is "inscne".
Firinscneach means masculine, baininscneach means feminine.
Fear, buachaill, uncail, basically anything to do with a man is masculine. So are all the jobs.
Bean, mathair, deirfiur are all feminine, anything to do with a woman generally,with cailin being the exception because it ends in "in"

Your tangent is a load of nonsense as per usual.

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

The Irish for gender is "inscne".

...

Your tangent is a load of nonsense as per usual.

It ‘corrected’ to English, I’ve since corrected it

And since the thread is concerned with language and gender identity in modern Ireland, you obviously apply a different meaning to the word tangent than I do.

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It ‘corrected’ to English, I’ve since corrected it

And since the thread is concerned with language and gender identity in modern Ireland, you obviously apply a different meaning to the word tangent than I do.

You tried to make a point that grammatical gender had no relevance to real gender. I showed you that nah, it pretty much boils down to the same biological split. However it does nothing to upset the idea that most people will never see transwomen the same as biological women though.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Didn’t occur to me before now because I do all my thinking in Irish anyway, and translate to other languages, so the idea of language itself being gendered in that way is a bit of a “mind blown” moment this morning I figure was worth sharing

Is your first language Irish?