Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)
Options
Comments
-
-
So we continue with segregated sports because of historical sexism and nothing at all to do with the fact that women would feature in practically zero disciplines if they were combined?One eyed Jack wrote: »
Nope, that’s never been my position. By all means maintain segregated sports if the organising and governing bodies may wish to, but the history behind segregated sports goes back to the revival of the Olympics at the turn of the last century at a time when women were regarded as inferior to men and were simply not permitted to participate in sports with men -0 -
LessOutragePlz wrote: »Do you see any issues with trans women competing against women in sporting events?
As they clearly retain an advantage over biological women.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3
Therefore allowing them to compete against biological women is wrong and unfair IMO.
I think there is certainly a case to examine the scientific evidence on whether they gain an advantage over Cis women or not. There seems to be a contest to the claims you make.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/978716732/wave-of-new-bills-say-trans-athletes-have-an-unfair-edge-what-does-the-science-s?t=1616279203631
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
So the changing rooms in, let's say, Abercrombie & Fitch were designed for men only?
How about the bathrooms in McDonald's?
Your argument is based on public toilets built decades ago, what about the vast majority of facilities built in the last 5 years?
Even in recent years building regulations have changed and are constantly evolving to accommodate society’s changing needs based upon more people gaining equal status in society. Consider for a minute if you will that councils across the UK and Ireland are shutting down public facilities because they’re just too costly to maintain separate public facilities which aren’t being used.
Unisex facilities and changing rooms are becoming more popular, and while the vast majority of facilities built in the last few years have been basically retrofitted to accommodate the needs of their customers, new builds are designed with greater accessibility in mind and equal access for all, regardless of gender or sex, etc, and where once employers for example were permitted to make reasonable accommodations, these reasonable accommodations are becoming regulatory.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
suicide_circus wrote: »So you believe single sex spaces have value?
Are you talking unisex bathrooms and the like?
Or do you mean single sex as in m Vs f where m/f refers to sex (as opposed to gender)
I'm assuming single sex as in m/f. I have no issue with uni sex or single sex. The difference I guess is that we have single sex or single gender spaces with the confusion that some believe they are the same and some don't.
If someone identifies as male and want to go piss in the mens bathroom I have no issue.
I certainly wouldn't want to force a trans man to use the women's toilet, especially in the current climate as it's likely to be dangerous or at least uncomfortable for the trans man.0 -
I think there is certainly a case to examine the scientific evidence on whether they gain an advantage over Cis women or not. There seems to be a contest to the claims you make.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/978716732/wave-of-new-bills-say-trans-athletes-have-an-unfair-edge-what-does-the-science-s?t=1616279203631
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/
I actually think the solution to trans people in sports is simple enough. But nobody would like the fair solution.
Take rugby. In pro rugby the heaviest cis male is 140kg. The lightest is 70kg. There is no way on Earth that a 70kg cis male being trampled by a 140kg cis male is somehow safer than an 80kg transwoman trampling a 60kg cis woman.
But if people are serious about safety in sports then it should be done as a whole. Not targeted at trans women.
So work out all the biological factors that go into the science of collisions and apply them without reference to trans people across the board.
It would ruin cis male pro rugby which would have to be split up into at least 2 leagues though...
But that's fine because we are all concerned about safety and not targeting trans people......right?0 -
Single. Sex. Spaces.Are you talking unisex bathrooms and the like?
Or do you mean single sex as in m Vs f where m/f refers to sex (as opposed to gender)
I'm assuming single sex as in m/f. I have no issue with uni sex or single sex. The difference I guess is that we have single sex or single gender spaces with the confusion that some believe they are the same and some don't.
If someone identifies as make and want to go piss in the mens bathroom I have no issue.
I certainly wouldn't want to force a trans man to use the women's toilet, especially in the current climate as it's likely to be dangerous or at least uncomfortable for the trans man.0 -
suicide_circus wrote: »Single. Sex. Spaces.
I misread earlier and clarified. We were talking about unisex before.
Anyway. You. Have. My. Answer. That. Ok?0 -
The sports sideshow always seems to centre around transwomen participating in women's leagues. For some reason transmen participating in men's leagues dosnt seem to come up.0
-
Advertisement
-
suicide_circus wrote: »The sports sideshow always seems to centre around transwomen participating in women's leagues. For some reason transmen participating in men's leagues dosnt seem to come up.
No one ever complains about trans men generallyIt was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
suicide_circus wrote: »The sports sideshow always seems to centre around transwomen participating in women's leagues. For some reason transmen participating in men's leagues dosnt seem to come up.
The debate centres in women because the posters who have issues with trans people participating centre the debate on trans women.
It's a complete mystery to me as to why they are surprised that when they talk about the "rights" of cis women, that TRAs end up discussing trans women more than trans men.0 -
The debate centres in women because the posters who have issues with trans people participating centre the debate on trans women.
It's a complete mystery to me as to why they are surprised that when they talk about the "rights" of cis women, that TRAs end up discussing trans women more than trans men.
Nothing to do with transmen having no physical advantage over men?0 -
suicide_circus wrote: »Nothing to do with transmen having no physical advantage over men?
It doesn't seem very likely given that the debate ALWAYS is centred around transwomen no matter what aspect of the trans debate we deal with.
And if transwomen are a threat in rugby in terms of safety then surely cis men are a danger to trans men. So why are people who are concerned with safety in sports not concerned about trans men?0 -
suicide_circus wrote: »The sports sideshow always seems to centre around transwomen participating in women's leagues. For some reason transmen participating in men's leagues dosnt seem to come up.
Why would they? It’s about ensuring that transgender athletes aren’t permitted to participate in women’s sports because women are deemed to be inferior to men and it wouldn’t be fair. When it comes to women or transgender athletes competing in men’s sports, it STILL wouldn’t be fair, because men are superior. It’s a double-edged sword for women and transgender athletes, portrayed as concern for women that they wouldn’t be able to compete on the same level as men. Talk of fairness in sports never revolves around recognition of fair competition with regard to gender or sex.
In spite of the fact that transgender athletes competing in women’s sports don’t tend to do well at all, and transgender athletes competing in men’s sports do well, it’s always maintained that the reason they aren’t permitted to compete in competitions is because it wouldn’t be fair to women and would mean the end of women’s sports.
The proponents of these arguments have absolutely no evidence for their ideas whatsoever (not as though sports are entirely dependent upon an athletes natural ability in any case), but their reliance on science just isn’t all that convincing when the argument could easily be made that all other things being equal, it’s precisely because of their biological advantages over their competition are the reason why there are winners and losers. It’s not just a question of biological advantages though, it’s more a question of the sheer amounts of money involved in sponsorship, training and development, and good ol’ politics.
Chris Mosier for example has done very well for themselves with Nike’s sponsorship, and Nike have done very well for themselves out of Chris Mosier.
Their record with regard to their treatment of women though, is less than stellar -
Nike hit with lawsuit from four women who allege gender discrimination
I Was the Fastest Girl in America, Until I Joined Nike
The reality of how women are actually treated, rarely gets an airing among people who are too busy concerning themselves with the imaginary threat posed to women’s sports from a group in society that make up less than 0.5% of any given population.0 -
I think there is certainly a case to examine the scientific evidence on whether they gain an advantage over Cis women or not. There seems to be a contest to the claims you make.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/978716732/wave-of-new-bills-say-trans-athletes-have-an-unfair-edge-what-does-the-science-s?t=1616279203631
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/
These are great articles. Thanks for posting them.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: ».
Chris Mosier for example has done very well for themselves with Nike’s sponsorship, and Nike have done very well for themselves out of Chris Mosier.
Their record with regard to their treatment of women though, is less than stellar -
Nike hit with lawsuit from four women who allege gender discrimination
I Was the Fastest Girl in America, Until I Joined Nike
The reality of how women are actually treated, rarely gets an airing among people who are too busy concerning themselves with the threat posed to women’s sports from a group in society that make up less than 0.5% of any given population.
That's a complete red herring, that you keep bringing up,0 -
Quantum Erasure wrote: »That's a complete red herring, that you keep bringing up,
How, in your opinion, is it a red herring?
Seems an entirely reasonable point to make when people say they are concerned that women’s sports would be dead if men were permitted to participate in women’s competitions and women were permitted to participate in men’s competitions. In reality very little would actually change as there isn’t a hope in hell of a critical mass point being reached, let alone the idea that men who just aren’t good enough to compete in men’s competitions would want to compete with women, knowing they would be eviscerated on social media, whether their fellow competitors were supportive of them or not.
How women are treated already in women’s sports is an entirely salient point to bring up if the concerns are about women’s welfare?
Edited to add context - It was a direct response to suicide circus’ point that “for some reason” trans men (not a term I use myself) participating in men’s leagues doesn’t seem to come up. As you pointed out, I do bring it up, so I was surprised at suicide circus’ claim that it never comes up, and I brought it up again, in the same way that all the other issues have been brought up repeatedly, and addressed repeatedly. I wouldn’t have brought it up at all in this thread because this thread is about Gender Identity in Modern Ireland, and I’ve pretty much stuck to that context, in spite of there being repeated attempts to bring in issues from a broader international context.
Suggesting I’m introducing a red herring by making a point about how women are treated already in women’s sports, or how women are treated already in women’s prisons, I’m making the point that people who raise these issues with regard to women’s rights, safety and welfare being under threat from men, and therefore they are simply being disingenuous, as those issues have absolutely zero, nothing to do with recognising the equal status of people who are transgender in Irish society, and you’re keeping shtum about their whole boatload of red herring?
It’s difficult to take an accusation like that seriously tbh when you’re prepared to ignore the bad faith discussion that I’ve been incredibly tolerant of up to this point.0 -
It doesn't seem very likely given that the debate ALWAYS is centred around transwomen no matter what aspect of the trans debate we deal with.
And if transwomen are a threat in rugby in terms of safety then surely cis men are a danger to trans men. So why are people who are concerned with safety in sports not concerned about trans men?
Well trans men in general. That's why I mention it in the bathroom stuff.
Trans men are either not physically strong enough to defend against cis/non trans/natal men in the men's bathroom so are welcome (presumably) to use the womens as the cis/non trans/natal woman are happily welcoming all "biological women" (as stated elsewhere) never mind the fact that they don't (I assume) want to use the women's toilet and on top of which are probably now going to be in danger of being attacked/challenged by women if they look 'too male'. None of this division promoted safety, but is all in the name of safety from a threat I'm not sure exists (happy to be corrected).
Either way.. trans men are being left out. Again.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Precisely.
I'd suggest you are I'll informed in that case. It may be enlightening for you to compare male and female athletics results from every shared discipline.
What you are suggesting is effectively the elimination of women in all but niche sports.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'd suggest you are I'll informed in that case. It may be enlightening for you to compare male and female athletics results from every shared discipline.
What you are suggesting is effectively the elimination of women in all but niche sports.
No that’s not what I’m suggesting at all. Neither of us have any information on the potential outcomes of permitting women to participate in men’s competitions or permitting men to compete in women’s competitions.
What we do know for certain is that men and women were never permitted to participate on a level playing field in sports competitions in the first place.
What we also know is that sports have evolved over time and will continue to evolve and develop.
What we also know is that participation in sports across the board among youth is in serious decline and badly in need of innovation to encourage more young people to participate in sports and maintain their participation into adulthood.
What we also know is that the labour market did not fall asunder when women were permitted to participate in employment, that too evolved and continues to evolve and encourage greater participation among women in the workplace, and yet still the vast majority of people who work in the home in Ireland are women - 98% as opposed to 2% are men.
So given what we actually do know from experience, against the strength of specious claims that have been trotted out over and over and have yet to come to pass ANY time there have been moves to acknowledge the equal status of all humans in society, I’d say the case for perpetuating segregated activities of any sort is a fairly weak one, based upon personal preference (which I have absolutely no problem with), but as the foundation of an objective argument in support of perpetuating segregation and discrimination intimating that it is more beneficial for society?
You just don’t have a very compelling argument to maintain segregation and discrimination against any group in society when the overwhelming observed evidence of the benefits to society as a whole of everyone having equal status and equal opportunities to participate in society suggests otherwise tbh. The best you can do is perpetuate fearmongering about a group in society who make up less than 0.5% of the population. The idea that they are a threat to anyone is just nonsense.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »No that’s not what I’m suggesting at all. Neither of us have any information on the potential outcomes of permitting women to participate in men’s competitions or permitting men to compete in women’s competitions. .
Don't we?
0 -
Erm yes we do? What are the qualifying times/levels for the Olympics for men and women for every athletics event? What are the winning times/scores? How about weightlifting? Maybe tennis? Golf? Swimming? Name your event, men beat women 99.99% of the time. Once, in mixed skeet shooting, a Chinese woman won gold, once.One eyed Jack wrote: »No that’s not what I’m suggesting at all. Neither of us have any information on the potential outcomes of permitting women to participate in men’s competitions or permitting men to compete in women’s competitions
.
To say we have no information on what would happen is frankly bizarre and a strange hill to die on.
I've ignored the rest of your post as it's pure whataboutery and not related in any way to gender or indeed sex based segregation.0 -
I actually think the solution to trans people in sports is simple enough. But nobody would like the fair solution.
...
So work out all the biological factors that go into the science of collisions and apply them without reference to trans people across the board.
It would ruin cis male pro rugby which would have to be split up into at least 2 leagues though...
But that's fine because we are all concerned about safety and not targeting trans people......right?
You've constructed an ideology that ties itself up in knots of complexity trying to justify itself.
Not content with just ending fair competition in women's sports, now you're suggesting ruining men's sports too.0 -
Erm yes we do? What are the qualifying times/levels for the Olympics for men and women for every athletics event? What are the winning times/scores? How about weightlifting? Maybe tennis? Golf? Swimming? Name your event, men beat women 99.99% of the time. Once, in mixed skeet shooting, a Chinese woman won gold, once.
To say we have no information on what would happen is frankly bizarre and a strange hill to die on.
I've ignored the rest of your post as it's pure whataboutery and not related in any way to gender or indeed sex based segregation.
Erm, no we don’t, as there’s not much by way of evidence to make any judgment in mixed sports, never mind athletics. In order to have any sort of a comparison to go off, you would have to look at evidence from other domains where the sexes or genders are mixed. They currently aren’t permitted to mix in many sports, and sports have developed along segregated lines.
Sports is a lot more than just about who crosses the finish line first, otherwise participating athletes would compete in the “Special Olympics” if there were any evidence to support the idea that they just wanted to win at any given event, given that the domain of athletics alone is enormous and there are athletes who are dominating events and the vast majority of participants will never even come close to their level.
Yet in over 100 years of their participation in sports, women’s sports aren’t dead, because the argument that women, or anyone for that matter, would just give up when they know they can’t win based upon their times and the times of the world’s elite athletes, just doesn’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny. A more common attitude among athletes is that they are always looking to challenge themselves, as opposed to whining because they didn’t get a medal. That’s just not a very common attitude in any sport, it’s a common attitude among losers who feel they’ve somehow been denied what they feel is their entitlement and that they were treated unfairly.0 -
Quantum Erasure wrote: »Do you just copy and paste these replies? Because I'm sure I've read something very similar before, and it's nothing to do with the post you're replying to
Y’know that’s not a bad idea, and I’ve no doubt you’ve read not just similar but probably word for word the exact same response to the exact same point which must have been brought up dozens of times now considering the thread is about gender identity in modern Ireland, and participation in sports as part of living in Irish society being a part of that discussion regarding the future of all facets of Irish society in relation to people being regarded as having equal status on the grounds of their gender identity.
I don’t imagine there are that many adults in their mid-40’s gearing up to compete for Ireland in the Olympics any time soon, do you? I’m only sorry I ever got it into my head to try and emulate Eddie Izzard’s achievements in marathon events, the 10k a day is killing me tbh but I know I could do to lose a few stone before fitting through the bathroom door becomes an issue in itself, never mind already having to figure out which bathroom I’ve wandered into!0 -
JamesFlynn wrote: »You've constructed an ideology that ties itself up in knots of complexity trying to justify itself.
Not content with just ending fair competition in women's sports, now you're suggesting ruining men's sports too.
You've completely proven my point. Many people (I'd say most) view taking similar safety measures in men's sport as is being proposed for women's sport as "ruining it".0 -
I'll give you the benefit is the doubt her, e, but frankly is getting difficult.One eyed Jack wrote: »Erm, no we don’t, as there’s not much by way of evidence to make any judgment in mixed sports, never mind athletics. In order to have any sort of a comparison to go off, you would have to look at evidence from other domains where the sexes or genders are mixed. They currently aren’t permitted to mix in many sports, and sports have developed along segregated lines.
Sports is a lot more than just about who crosses the finish line first, otherwise participating athletes would compete in the “Special Olympics” if there were any evidence to support the idea that they just wanted to win at any given event, given that the domain of athletics alone is enormous and there are athletes who are dominating events and the vast majority of participants will never even come close to their level.
Yet in over 100 years of their participation in sports, women’s sports aren’t dead, because the argument that women, or anyone for that matter, would just give up when they know they can’t win based upon their times and the timoes of the world’s elite athletes, just doesn’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny. A more common attitude among athletes is that they are always looking to challenge themselves, as opposed to whining because they didn’t get a medal. That’s just not a very common attitude in any sport, it’s a common attitude among losers who feel they’ve somehow been denied what they feel is their entitlement and that they were treated unfairly.
Of course we know the outcome, women wouldn't make it to the professional levels since men would be better than them in almost every discipline.
So have now relegated women to amateurs only endeavours, where money is even tighter. Who is funding all these unsuccessful female athletes? There world be no women at any mixed events since they wouldnt qualify, the men would take all the places, to suggest otherwise is absurd. We have the evidence, 100m race is the same task for all genders, the times give us the facts, women cannot compete, unless they happen to be born men, but even then they wouldn't as the lack of testosterone would inhibit them.
Of course women compete in sports to win, it's incredibly sexist to think otherwise.
Women's sports aren't dead because they are segregated, that's the whole point!
If you are playing any sport without trying to win them you are not competing, you are exercising or playing for fun, again, things that are not related to a gender based conversation.0 -
You've completely proven my point. Many people (I'd say most) view taking similar safety measures in men's sport as is being proposed for women's sport as "ruining it".
Erm, you were the one who said it would ruin male rugby?I
It would ruin cis male pro rugby which would have to be split up into at least 2 leagues though...0 -
Advertisement
-
I'll give you the benefit is the doubt her, e, but frankly is getting difficult.
Of course we know the outcome, women wouldn't make it to the professional levels since men would be better than them in almost every discipline.
So have now relegated women to amateurs only endeavours, where money is even tighter. Who is funding all these unsuccessful female athletes? There world be no women at any mixed events since they wouldnt qualify, the men would take all the places, to suggest otherwise is absurd. We have the evidence, 100m race is the same task for all genders, the times give us the facts, women cannot compete, unless they happen to be born men, but even then they wouldn't as the lack of testosterone would inhibit them.
Of course women compete in sports to win, it's incredibly sexist to think otherwise.
Women's sports aren't dead because they are segregated, that's the whole point!
If you are playing any sport without trying to win them you are not competing, you are exercising or playing for fun, again, things that are not related to a gender based conversation.
This is my point though - we don’t know the outcome, because we can only base any assessments on hindsight, as opposed to being able to predict with any degree of accuracy how in the future mixed competitions would be configured to make the competition fair to all participants regardless of their sex or gender identity.
We haven’t relegated women to amateurs only endeavours, they are still competing with men at professional levels and are on equal parity with men in terms of prize money and sponsorship opportunities and all the rest of it, so the idea that they wouldn’t qualify simply doesn’t arise - they aren’t going to qualify if the sports are maintained as they are, there’s no argument on that score, but what I’m suggesting is that the rules of the sports could be changed, or the qualifying criteria could be changed, to give participants a fair chance at competing regardless of their sex or gender.
I’m not suggesting that people don’t compete to win either, my point was that the vast majority of people participating in any sport will never reach the level of elite status in the sport, and they still participate in the sport because they want to, so that’s why I just don’t know where this idea that anyone would give up the sport because they simply cannot win, is coming from? You’re posting about best times and all the rest of it, but how many athletes in the world who compete against Usain Bolt will ever beat him? They’re all aware of his times, yet they don’t just hang up their expensive runners sponsored by Nike or whoever, even though they know they will never even come close to his time.
Women’s sports aren’t dead not because they aren’t competing against men, but because women themselves enjoy the sport and have made a career for themselves in the sport, albeit as short lived as men’s careers in any sport. It’s like any domain, whether it be sports, academia, medicine, science, technology, etc - just because we aren’t all Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates doesn’t mean people simply give up what they’re passionate about, they still have the ability to maintain a good standard of living for themselves by having equal opportunities as everyone else when they are not subject to unfavourable treatment on any one of the nine grounds of unlawful discrimination.
The whole point is that these changes in Irish Law will have little to no effect on Irish society as it is now, but for future generations of children who are transgender or gender non-conforming, it will hopefully be one less thing they have to worry about, as there would hopefully be no stigma against people who are transgender or gender non-conforming in Irish society, they will be regarded equally as anyone else, and they will be encouraged to participate in sports not just for recreational or health reasons, but they will be able to compete on an equal basis as anyone else in whatever they choose to do with their lives, whether it be a career in sports or anything else. The point being that they won’t face the same discrimination as the current generation, in the same way as people of this generation don’t face the same discrimination as previous generations in Irish society.
I’m certain that people will think of new ways to discriminate against other groups of people in society who are in some way different from them though, quite likely on the basis that they are natural born humans as opposed to humans who are the product of assisted human reproduction or some other standard by which they may regard themselves as superior.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ym42lV1ka8
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement