First olympic transgender athlete to compete at Tokyo 2020 **MOD NOTE IN OP**

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Women is not specific to biology. Otherwise, trans- wouldn't ever be recognised.

The is a non sequitur and a begging of the question.

I guess the biological term is female.

Nope.

You seem to recognise ghat this person is no longer a man, but you are trying to prevent her being a woman. There's a contradiction there.

There is no contradiction. A trans woman could be a trans woman and just that, a separate category to woman. Amongst the many absurdities of the trans movement is the claim to oppose gender binaries but then to reinforce them.

I don't know where the term cis-gender originated. Regardless, it has the meaning it has in modern times. I don't use it often myself, only here as it's the antynom to trans- in this sense. We used to say biological woman or man.

The term cis means on one side, trans on the other. See CisAlpine and TransAlpine.

You don't like referring to her as a woman, that's your opinion.

No its a biological fact.

Semantics the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. What you are saying is quite literally the definition of semantics. I'm not trying to trivialise your opinion, that's just what it means.

Biology is the science of living organisms and classifications and classifies humans, like all other sexual dimorphic animals into male and female sexes. The very few intersex exceptions don't violate that rule, no more than a one legged man disproves that humans are bipedal.

And I don't see how any of it is relevant to the topic. We all know her history. We all know the biological issues in regards to the sport. What changes whether we say A, B or C. The situation at the olympics is the same.
The fact is, the end at the olympics is called Womens Weightlifting, not Female weightlifting. And for some bizarre reason, it's grouped by gender rather than sex.

The distinction between woman and female is in your head. One doesn't refer to gender and the other to sex. Don't know where you got that idea from.

Not that in law there is in any difference between gender and sex, when you change your gender on a birth certificate you change your sex ( at least legally, but of course not biologically). This is probably why she can compete in the Olympics.

Gentlemanne

Lurleen wrote: »

Because she is not a woman - she is a transwoman. Calling a transwoman a woman is redefining the meaning of woman. It is not respectful towards us women. Please just try to understand where we are coming from. It is not right to redefine the meaning when woman means adult human biological female. And no we are not just defined by biology, but the word "woman" is (you are recognising this yourself with your acknowledgement of the difference in biology). After that we are defined by numerous other things - including gender. And that is what the term "transwoman" recognises.

We are not a "subset" of women, we are women (subset?!)

There is nothing technical about it - women are women and transwomen are transwomen. It doesn't make sense to refer to someone as trans but then also to refer to her as a woman.

And we are not "cis" women - just women.

It is absolutely not semantics - it is very important to us, especially with a term like "birthing people" being used at an official level. This is so undermining of the female sex.

It's impossible to have a nuanced conversation about transgender people on here if the consensus is that they're delusional about their identities. I'll continue to use cis and trans as they're the most correct and clear terms.

Also, the points many people make here are usually very derivative, but your style of posting seems fairly Obvious, or perhaps I'm being Desperate?

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

It's impossible to have a nuanced conversation about transgender people on here if the consensus is that they're delusional about their identities.

I just want to point out in absolutely clear terms, since there seems to be a significant effort by a small minority on boards, what with "thread reviews" from certain quarters and unusually descriptive "mod warnings" and so, on to shut down any and all discussion about topics related to transgender issues, that the only person who has even come close to linking "transgender people" with "dillusional" in this thread—is you.

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Also, the points many people make here are usually very derivative, but your style of posting seems fairly Obvious, or perhaps I'm being Desperate?

You've made clear that unless people agree with you entirely, you don't even want them to be allowed to post. Not just in this thread, but about this topic, full stop. Something to consider when you're contemplating your interpretation of posts.

On that subject, can someone link me to the forum where you can make suggestions and/or request clarification on moderation practices and policies?

FileNotFound

Mellor wrote: »

That's actually unlikely to happen tbh. The graph above is the Master division.
In the olympics the other athletes will be in their prime, and yes they are definitely on drugs*.
She's most likely won't even make the podium, let alone the gold medal.


* I think the drugs she took to transition would also be on the banned list too - another reason to disallow her competing.

Have to say my knowledge of power lifting is poor beyond belief, so will take your word on it.

Some day I do think we will see someone abuse this system badly and make a mockery of their sport.

I just think equality seems to be put above fairness in sport - which is sad in my view.


At the same time I fully support Lauren to be who she wants to be.

FileNotFound

Gentlemanne wrote: »

It's impossible to have a nuanced conversation about transgender people on here if the consensus is that they're delusional about their identities. I'll continue to use cis and trans as they're the most correct and clear terms.

Also, the points many people make here are usually very derivative, but your style of posting seems fairly Obvious, or perhaps I'm being Desperate?

In fairness all labels aside - honestly who gives a sh1t what one calls themselves - makes no real difference to any of us.

This thread does raise a real issue of fairness in sport, and it would be great to keep it on topic.

Mind you it seems that almost everyone agrees this does not equal fairness.. So maybe the discussion is as good as over.

jmayo

Lurleen wrote: »

I agree except one point: she isn't a woman, she's a transwoman. It's important to many many women to make the distinction, and while transwomen deserve the right to dignity and recognition for who they are, so do women. It should go both ways, not just one way. I know you weren't being disrespectful, just, as I said, it's important to make the distinction, because what's happening when the distinction is not made at an official level is hideous language erasing female biology with terms such as "front hole" and "birthing people". This is happening in the name of inclusiveness... yet via exclusion of women. It's not inclusive.

100% right.

Mellor wrote: »

How does referring to her as a women generically impact the dignity or recognition of any one else? What is going one-way?

I was speaking informally btw, if you we are to be technical, then yes she is a transwomen, a woman at birth is a ciswomen. Both subsets under the gender of women. Both terms recoginise the biology/history of each.

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the sporting situation. Seems to be semantics mostly.

I absolutely detest this shytology.

For thousands of years a woman was taken to be a female that had a vagina, could possibly give birth to offspring, had XX chromosomes.

Yes they were the odd exceptions, the intersex individuals where nature had thrown a curve ball and there could be mix up with genitals.

But no history, science and 99.9% of females have to fooking change and adopt a prefix to the title woman so a few people feel good about themselves and the flutes particularly looking for validation on our modern social media platforms can feel good about themselves.

Luarel Hubbard is not a woman, will never be a woman.
She is a trans-woman.
Period.

And precisely because she is not a real woman she should never ever get to compete in WOMEN ONLY sports.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

On that subject, can someone link me to the forum where you can make suggestions and/or request clarification on moderation practices and policies?

You could try Feedback, but I dont fancy your chances tbh.

Tilden Katz

Mellor wrote: »

How does referring to her as a women generically impact the dignity or recognition of any one else? What is going one-way?

I was speaking informally btw, if you we are to be technical, then yes she is a transwomen, a woman at birth is a ciswomen. Both subsets under the gender of women. Both terms recoginise the biology/history of each.

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the sporting situation. Seems to be semantics mostly.

Urgh.

B.A._Baracus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On that subject, can someone link me to the forum where you can make suggestions and/or request clarification on moderation practices and policies?

You're speaking as if boards is some institute. Boards.ie is a website that makes money by selling ads. What one 'mod' can deem acceptable another could ban you for.

Mellor

Deleted User wrote: »

It's exactly specific to biology, and has never referred to "gender" (whatever you consider that to be).

Transgender/transwomen/transman refer to gender. Saying they have only ever refer to biology is clearly wrong. You don't have to agree, bit the person I was replying to acknowledged it,

People now recognise gender as distinct from sex. Not everyone agrees.

fvp4 wrote: »

The is a non sequitur and a begging of the question.

How it is? Transwomen refers to gender. In that context the -women comes from gender.

Nope.

Actually. You are probably right there.
As female is often used for gender as well as sex in a formal setting.

There is no contradiction. A trans woman could be a trans woman and just that, a separate category to woman. Amongst the many absurdities of the trans movement is the claim to oppose gender binaries but then to reinforce them.

I notice you dodged the question. How many genders are there?
Seems like you are saying transwoman is new gender.

The term cis means on one side, trans on the other. See CisAlpine and TransAlpine.

I'm aware what there prefix cis means. I was referring to cisgender specifically. No idea where or when it became a thing. But it is now. We both know what it refers to. A but childish of people to pretend not to understand (not you fyi).

No its a biological fact.

You are conflating biology and gender. I've never said she was a biological woman.
This is a repeat occurrence. You mixed up what is being referred to.

Biology is the science of living organisms and classifications and classifies humans, like all other sexual dimorphic animals into male and female sexes. The very few intersex exceptions don't violate that rule, no more than a one legged man disproves that humans are bipedal.

What is the relevance of this. I haven't claimed she was biologically female.
You seem to be arguing against some point that was never made.

If people want to argue that transgender isn't real, they can. But as above I don't think it's require here and just leaves a valid opinion to be disregarded.

Note that in law there is in any difference between gender and sex, when you change your gender on a birth certificate you change your sex ( at least legally, but of course not biologically). This is probably why she can compete in the Olympics.

Maybe it's my distinction. Fair enough.
I see male/female as more clinical terms. And ladies/gents, man/women as gender.

If you are saying they are all gender terms. Then than doesn't change my point.
If we recognise transgender is real (the poster I replied to, and yourself seem to do that) then we recognise the idea that people can have a gender that doesn't align with the biological sex. We are all grown ups, we all understand what that means on a practical level.
Arguing over which words we used to describe that is semantics and has no impact of the actualy competition and trans-athletes sports.

Tilden Katz

Mellor wrote: »

I'm sorry you feel the female sex is being undermined. Personally I don't see it. There are many great things that female do, have done, and continue to do. It's takes more than which word we use to take that away from them. To be, it's just a word.

Of course you don’t. Aaaahhh, to be a blithe male with nothing to lose. Must be nice.

Mellor

suicide_circus wrote: »

If that's your position, you don't have a leg to stand on regarding LH's participation in women's sports. Lies have consequences and big lies have big consequences and the lie that a woman is anyone who says thry're a woman is a steaming whopper.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Kinda ironic that you talk about lies.

My position on "LH's participation in women's sports". WTF are you talking about.

"that a woman is anyone who says thry're a woman" have the IOC said this? Complete nonsense out of you.

suicide_circus

Putting "gender" at the top of a flowchart of different "types" of woman is like putting "soul" at the top of a flowchart of different types of human.

B.A._Baracus

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

You're speaking as if boards is some institute. Boards.ie is a website that makes money by selling ads. What one 'mod' can deem acceptable another could ban you for.

Boards doesn't need to be "some institute". There are obviously moderation policies, presumably to try and instill some sort of consistency across individual subforums. I'm interested in those. That's all.

Tilden Katz

Deleted User wrote: »

I just want to point out in absolutely clear terms, since there seems to be a significant effort by a small minority on boards, what with "thread reviews" from certain quarters and unusually descriptive "mod warnings" and so, on to shut down any and all discussion about topics related to transgender issues, that the only person who has even come close to linking "transgender people" with "dillusional" in this thread—is you.

Such as the Gender Politics In Ireland thread that was ‘Closed For Review’ and never revisited. With no explanation given for the failure to reopen it.

FileNotFound

jmayo wrote: »

I absolutely detest this shytology.

For thousands of years a woman was taken to be a female that had a vagina, could possibly give birth to offspring, had XX chromosomes.

Yes they were the odd exceptions, the intersex individuals where nature had thrown a curve ball and there could be mix up with genitals.

But no history, science and 99.9% of females have to fooking change an adopt a prefix to the title woman so some a few people feel good about themselves and the flutes particularly looking for validation on our modern social media platforms can feel good about themselves.

While your point has a very solid base that we are changing very old definitions to fit others in, I would ask.

Does calling this person a woman have any real impact on your life? I mean really?

If not why give a sh1t, mind you this seems to be something that keeps going.

Sure we had to create a new label for people that don't want to be labelled - the logic of it has me in tears laughing. But since it has no real impact on me I couldn't give a rats arse.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Kinda ironic that you talk about lies.

My position om "your position, you don't have a leg to stand on regarding LH's participation in women's sports". WTF are you talking about.

"that a woman is anyone who says thry're a woman" have the IOC said this? Complete nonsense out of you.

What's your definition of woman then?

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

I notice you dodged the question. How many genders are there?

Zero, according to radical feminists.

Infinite, including such things as "tree self", "novigender", "demigender" and so on, according to many trans rights activists.

A spectrum from ultra-feminine to ultra-masculine, according to other trans rights activists.

Two, according to people who conflate sex and gender.

How many do you think there are?

FileNotFound

FileNotFound wrote: »

Does calling this person a woman have any real impact on your life? I mean really?

I suppose it depends on whether you think that forcing people to say things they don't believe is impactful?

Mellor

Deleted User wrote: »

What's your definition of woman then?

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the post you quoted.
The other poster made absolutely no sense. Regardless of mine or anyones definitions.

Deleted User wrote: »

Zero, according to radical feminists.

Infinite, including such things as "tree self", "novigender", "demigender" and so on, according to many trans rights activists.

A spectrum from ultra-feminine to ultra-masculine, according to other trans rights activists.

Two, according to people who conflate sex and gender.

How many do you think there are?

I didn't asked what a radical feminists, a trans rights activists thought.
I asked that poster, as it was relevant to what they said.

Admittedly, I have of those terms are new to me, it must take some effort to keep up. But wouldn't they (or some) be gender identities rather that the specific gender?

B.A._Baracus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Boards doesn't need to be "some institute". There are obviously moderation policies, presumably to try and instill some sort of consistency across individual subforums. I'm interested in those. That's all.

Hahaha. OK dude.

Gatling

suicide_circus wrote: »

Putting "gender" at the top of a flowchart of different "types" of woman is like putting "soul" at the top of a flowchart of different types of human.

According to trans charity gender is a broad spectrum starting with barbie on one end and gi Joe at the far end

Mellor

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Of course you don’t. Aaaahhh, to be a blithe male with nothing to lose. Must be nice.

If you have reasoning or a point of view i'm not seeing, then by all means you might change my opinion.

But snide comments aren't exactly reinforce the point that's there.

jmayo wrote: »

I absolutely detest this shytology.

For thousands of years a woman was taken to be a female that had a vagina, could possibly give birth to offspring, had XX chromosomes.

Yes they were the odd exceptions, the intersex individuals where nature had thrown a curve ball and there could be mix up with genitals.

But no history, science and 99.9% of females have to fooking change an adopt a prefix to the title woman so some a few people feel good about themselves and the flutes particularly looking for validation on our modern social media platforms can feel good about themselves.

Luarel Hubbard is not a woman, will never be a woman.
She is a trans-woman.
Period.

Why would anybody have to adopt a prefix?

My Granny is a woman.
Chris Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner.
I literally couldn't care less what Chris/Caitlyn calls themselves. Does bother me.
Whether we say trans-woman is a woman who was born a man.
Or we say transwoman is a new gender that's neither male nor female.

What difference does it make? They are still living the same life.
My Granny is still a woman.

I do get where you are coming from. I just don't why people care so much. Before it was the woke brigade that was offended at everything. Now it seems everyone wants to be offended all the time - maybe this was always the case, we're just more exposed to it.

jmayo

FileNotFound wrote: »

While your point has a very solid base that we are changing very old definitions to fit others in, I would ask.

Does calling this person a woman have any real impact on your life? I mean really?

If not why give a sh1t, mind you this seems to be something that keeps going.

Sure we had to create a new label for people that don't want to be labelled - the logic of it has me in tears laughing. But since it has no real impact on me I couldn't give a rats arse.

The thing is these things are insidious.

First it is a small thing only affecting a few people so you would say why worry.
Then the proponents of some of this cr** push and push, gain traction on social media, the old fashioned media, lobby politicians to climb on board and before you know it someone is in danger of losing their job and/or being sued because they labelled someone the incorrect label or pronoun that day, they refused them entry to a women's only changing room, they refused to give them a women's only massage, etc.

GreeBo

FileNotFound wrote: »

Does calling this person a woman have any real impact on your life? I mean really?
If not why give a sh1t, mind you this seems to be something that keeps going.

Well if someone who was different to me was trying to claim to be the same as me, and in fact demanding that everyone treat them the same as me, that might cause me concern.
One might equally ask what real impact does it have on their life if I refer to them as a man?

FileNotFound wrote: »

Sure we had to create a new label for people that don't want to be labelled - the logic of it has me in tears laughing.

What about the ones that want to fit themselves in under existing labels?

Gatling

Mellor wrote: »

My Granny is a woman.
Chris Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner.
I literally couldn't care less what Chris/Caitlyn calls themselves.

Well Chris Jenner is still Chris Jenner woman , Bruce Jenner is now catlyn ( still no real confirmation she had full sex reassignment surgery)

suicide_circus

Mellor wrote: »

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Kinda ironic that you talk about lies.

My position on "LH's participation in women's sports". WTF are you talking about.

"that a woman is anyone who says thry're a woman" have the IOC said this? Complete nonsense out of you.

You say LH is a woman. You also say you have an issue with LH competing against women. As i'm sure you can appreciate, this is something of a contradiction. If LH is a woman, who else would LH compete against?

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

If you have reasoning or a point of view i'm not seeing, then by all means you might change my opinion.

But snide comments aren't exactly reinforce the point that's there.

Why would anybody have to adopt a prefix?

My Granny is a woman.
Chris Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner.
I literally couldn't care less what Chris/Caitlyn calls themselves. Does bother me.
Whether we say trans-woman is a woman who was born a man.
Or we say transwoman is a new gender that's neither male nor female.

What difference does it make? They are still living the same life.
My Granny is still a woman.

I do get where you are coming from. I just don't why people care so much. Before it was the woke brigade that was offended at everything. Now it seems everyone wants to be offended all the time - maybe this was always the case, we're just more exposed to it.

It's the fact that we are expected to go along with a biological fallacy that annoys me.

The fact that you get branded a bigot or a phobe for not pandering to what is essentially wrong, is quite offensive.

I have, and will continue to, treat trans people I meet with reciprocal respect and have never had an occasion where I intentionally "mis"gendered them (called them by anything other than their "preferred pronoun") while speaking with them unless they abused me for not wholly believing in "their" reality.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the post you quoted.

It would seem to me that the definition of "woman" is pretty intrinsic to the discussion, since the basis on which people agree or disagree with the inclusion of trans women in women's sports lies precisely in whether or not trans women are women, and that is very much dependent on what your definition of woman is.

If you agree with the dictionary definition of woman as "adult human female", then presumably trans women, being male, should not be allowed to partake in women's (adult human females') sports. Whereas if you hold some other definition of woman that is inclusive of trans women without a need for the "trans" prefix, it makes sense that you would be for the inclusion of transwomen in women's (trans-inclusive definition) sports.

I suppose you might say "trans women are women" and use "women" as a group identifier, because you don't want to hurt the feelings of trans women who ultimately wish to be seen as women, while also believing that trans women are male and natal women are female and that that distinction is important for eg. sports. But in that case, there is still a need to be able to describe the distinction between trans women and women when discussing those issues where it becomes pertinent. So we have a situation where the constructionists, who believe that language and culture create reality, have their way in trans women being referred to as "women" with no distinction, but then reality comes along nevertheless and we're inventing new words and phrases regardless in order to be able to discuss trans women and natal women as separate "types" in these issues where it's seen as important to do so. And I'm yet to be convinced that there is a significant difference between referring to transwomen and women as transwomen and women, and referring to transwomen and women as one of the other euphemisms that spring up in order to have these discussions in the distinction space.

I'm also not sure why calling a trans women a trans woman is widely regarded (in constructionist circles) to be a bad thing, and insistence is made that the distinction is insulting, but sure adding cis on the front is just fine and anyone who objects is a bigot, or a snowflake, or whatever.

Mellor wrote: »

Admittedly, I have of those terms are new to me, it must take some effort to keep up. But wouldn't they (or some) be gender identities rather that the specific gender?

It depends on your definition of gender. Good luck telling someone who identifies on their Twitter profile as novigender (definition: a gender that is super complex and impossible to describe in a single term) that it's not a gender.