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

Gentlemanne

Gatling wrote: »

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

Why is this relevant?

FileNotFound

jmayo wrote: »

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.

I can understand this point of view, as someone who really struggles to keep up nowadays.

I suppose I would hope that what we have now is a fight for some form of acceptance and that it would calm rather than escalate. Mind you the up and coming generations are not ones for calming anything haha.

Realistically the whole world should stop worrying about the words used, but how they were intended. If i accidentally mislabel someone it is an honest mistake, and should be accpeted as such, I'm always open to being educated but still call every man who serves in the shop etc, man or bud. These are just words I use, i don't even mean anything by them, just habit and tyrying to be nice.

I'm going with the optimistic view for this one, so hitting the accept, don't give a sh1t button.

I was once verbally abused for expressing my opinion on others gender/sexual orientation - my view was who cares and utter indifference - apparently some see that as unacceptable to.

Podge_irl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven’t ignored science or data or anything else, and as for extremities? Here you are trying to make the point that women’s sports are under threat on the basis of looking at one individual who isn’t even an elite athlete, they’re average, but somehow you’re trying to convince people they represent a threat to women’s sports in a sport where none of the competitors look like women!

:rolleyes:

That's some nice casual misogyny thrown in there.

Mellor

Gatling wrote: »

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

Haha my mistake. I’m not much of a Kardasian fan tbh. I think the C initial made sense in my head. But yeah, I meant Bruce. The decathlete.

Mellor

suicide_circus wrote: »

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?

Why do you think that’s a contradiction?
There are many athletes who are excluded from competing. LH should be one if them.

She spent a large part of her life with testosterone levels far above that of a women. If another athlete has those levels they’ve be banned.

She also took a cocktail of hormones and related drugs to transition. Drugs that are banned.
If another athlete took those drugs they be banned.

She wants to be treated equally. That’s fine I say. She should be banned like anyone else would be.

Mellor

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Not in the slightest. Which was precisely my point, they you’ve missed.
I said that even if you accept her as a women, that doesn’t give her a pass to compete in sports, as she has not met the conditions that female athletes have to meet.
If she wants to be treated like a women. Fine. She should be banned.

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.

That’s is a good summary. I was using it as a group identifier. At no point does that imply there is no differences, thats just silly.
And I agree that at times we will need to distinguish. And you’ve just done that quite easily on the above.

And there are also times when we do not need to distinguish. And not distinguishing for simplicity is fine.

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.

I haven’t looked into it, or the endless words.
But what I was getting at is that many are gender indenties not specific genders in themselves.

Honestly, the whole thing is so complex. I couldn’t care what people have on their Twitter profile.

suicide_circus

Mellor wrote: »

Why do you think that’s a contradiction?
There are many athletes who are excluded from competing. LH should be one if them.

She spent a large part of her life with testosterone levels far above that of a women. If another athlete has those levels they’ve be banned.

She also took a cocktail of hormones and related drugs to transition. Drugs that are banned.
If another athlete took those drugs they be banned.

She wants to be treated equally. That’s fine I say. She should be banned like anyone else would be.

Fair answer. I dont agree with your starting point but at least its a coherent response.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Not in the slightest. Which was precisely my point, they you’ve missed.
I said that even if you accept her as a women, that doesn’t give her a pass to compete in sports, as she has not met the conditions that female athletes have to meet.
If she wants to be treated like a women. Fine. She should be banned.

Yes, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for explaining.

Mellor wrote: »

That’s is a good summary. I was using it as a group identifier. At no point does that imply there is no differences, thats just silly.
And I agree that at times we will need to distinguish. And you’ve just done that quite easily on the above.

I was more making the point that, if "trans women" is an insulting distinction to trans women, and that is the reason why we should call trans women women, and indeed why many insist that trans women be called women by everyone (whether they believe that or not), then surely the distinction itself is the issue. And if the distinction is the issue, then surely it's not any less insulting just because of the context.

Mellor wrote: »

I couldn’t care what people have on their Twitter profile.

Honestly, I miss the days when I could dismiss Twitter activists as culturally irrelevant internet noise.

One eyed Jack

Podge_irl wrote: »

:rolleyes:

That's some nice casual misogyny thrown in there.

Oh will you stop

As if you give a damn about misogyny in a thread where the point has been made not once, but numerous times, that the basis for determining an athletes eligibility to compete is predicated upon whether they meet the criteria of looking like a woman, and if they don’t meet the stereotype of what looks like a woman, they should be regarded with suspicion, which is the point Gatling was making, and the point I was responding to.

Gatlings point was that his suspicions that Caster Semenya was not a woman on the basis of appearance and the way she ran were justified, and the sex testing only confirmed his suspicions. My point was that none of the athletes look like women, because they don’t, because they are elite athletes who have made sacrifices to be able to compete in the sport at the cost of looking the way they do. Contrast the appearance of elite athletes with the appearance of the women in the “Most beautiful women in the world” thread on here, and you’ll pretty quickly see what I mean.


“Casual misogyny”, a meaningless and stupid term, but cheers for the chuckles anyways, you get an appreciative thank from me and all.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point was that none of the athletes look like women, because they don’t, because they are elite athletes who have made sacrifices to be able to compete in the sport at the cost of looking the way they do. Contrast the appearance of elite athletes with the appearance of the women in the “

Actually all of the athletes caster ran against were pretty average feminine with six packs and slim builds caster was built broader and bigger than her fellow competitors ,and definitely more male in appearance ,
Oddly enough she ran at an event where 3 others had the same abnormalities(producing several times the testosterone of normal women) in different events all from Africa .
The average long distance or middle distance runners have Always Been very lean and slightly built ,in casters case she stood out a mile .
The old addage of never judge a book by its cover comes to mind ,
I generally don't discuss peoples looks or judge on Looks in this case she was all wrong .

bewareofthedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“Casual misogyny”, a meaningless and stupid term, but cheers for the chuckles anyways, you get an appreciative thank from me and all.

Body shaming Women competing in professional sport is bigoted.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point was that none of the athletes look like women, because they don’t, because they are elite athletes who have made sacrifices to be able to compete in the sport at the cost of looking the way they do. Contrast the appearance of elite athletes with the appearance of the women in the “Most beautiful women in the world” thread on here, and you’ll pretty quickly see what I mean.

You are being a bit harsh there bud.

I'd agree that many of the top female heavyweight weightlifters would look somewhat different to the women in the 'Most beautiful women in the world' thread, but they still look like women.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Actually all of the athletes caster ran against were pretty average feminine with six packs and slim builds caster was built broader and bigger than her fellow competitors ,and definitely more male in appearance ,
Oddly enough she ran at an event where 3 others had the same abnormalities(producing several times the testosterone of normal women) in different events all from Africa .
The average long distance or middle distance runners have Always Been very lean and slightly built ,in casters case she stood out a mile .
The old addage of never judge a book by its cover comes to mind ,
I generally don't discuss peoples looks or judge on Looks in this case she was all wrong .

Your justification simply boils down to-

“I don’t make judgements about people based upon their appearance, I make judgements about people based upon their appearance”.

It’s self-contradictory.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your justification simply boils down to-

I generally don't but in this case is was right along with many others ,

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

I was more making the point that, if "trans women" is an insulting distinction to trans women, and that is the reason why we should call trans women women, and indeed why many insist that trans women be called women by everyone (whether they believe that or not), then surely the distinction itself is the issue. And if the distinction is the issue, then surely it's not any less insulting just because of the context.

I think it's worse, the distinction seems to be only 1 way, adding "trans" is insulting yet we must now add "cis" to the biological sexes.

If there was no issues with trans athletes competing then why do we have any gender distinctions?

We can avoid the whole issue by having sex based distinctions. Case closed.

One eyed Jack

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are being a bit harsh there bud.

I'd agree that many of the top female heavyweight weightlifters would look somewhat different to the women in the 'Most beautiful women in the world' thread, but they still look like women.

My point is that it’s simply the case that we all have our own individual standards of what does or doesn’t constitute our already formed judgements about what does or doesn’t meet those criteria by which we determine what is or isn’t a woman. If a person doesn’t meet the criteria, then in our opinion they’re not a woman.


Maybe you can spot the difference, but I can’t -


Laurel Hubbard


Andrea Thompson

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

I generally don't but in this case is was right along with many others ,

You do, you do it all the time and it’s a perfectly natural thing to do, it’s precisely how you determined that in this particular case, one of these things does not look like the others. There’s nothing wrong with that, but saying that you were right because testing which requires specialist equipment confirmed your suspicions is giving yourself a pat on the back in hindsight and ignoring all the times when the tests would not have confirmed your suspicions.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point is that it’s simply the case that we all have our own individual standards of what does or doesn’t constitute our already formed judgements about what does or doesn’t meet those criteria by which we determine what is or isn’t a woman. If a person doesn’t meet the criteria, then in our opinion they’re not a woman.


Maybe you can spot the difference, but I can’t -


Laurel Hubbard


Andrea Thompson

Being a woman isn’t a subjective opinion. What are we to learn from your links anyway? I think the woman (the cis woman) is in fact feminine looking.

Necro

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.

Any issues with forum specific moderation are at first dealt with by PMing a forum mod. If unhappy with that outcome you can PM a Category Mod or start a thread in the Help Desk

Site wide Feedback goes to the Feedback forum. Hope that helps

GreeBo

Not being able to "spot the difference" is irrelevant, we all know what the criteria has been for millenia.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Maybe you can spot the difference, but I can’t -

Can you spot the difference now?



My thoughts are that the Olympic rules are a joke and only one of the two people you posted a photo of should be allowed to take part in the female weightlifting category. And that person isn't someone from NZ.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

But that’s not the basis upon which it is determined who is eligible to compete in women’s sports competitions? The basis for determining their eligibility is decided by whether or not they meet the criteria in the sporting organisations policies. These policies don’t mention anything about people’s ideas of what constitutes a woman, they’re determined by criteria such as permissible levels of hormones for athletes who want to compete in the women’s competitions, and permissible levels of hormones for athletes who want to compete in the men’s competitions. Most ordinary people base their arguments solely upon an individual athletes appearance - they don’t look like a woman (whereas they wouldn’t otherwise know, if they didn’t know already the person is transgender).

Mellor wrote: »

I said that even if you accept her as a women, that doesn’t give her a pass to compete in sports, as she has not met the conditions that female athletes have to meet.
If she wants to be treated like a women. Fine. She should be banned.

But Laurel Hubbard does meet the criteria, and that’s why they were selected following qualification, precisely because they met the eligibility criteria to compete in the competition. Therefore they shouldn’t be banned. Whether or not anyone regards them as a woman is neither here nor there in terms of their eligibility to compete in women’s sports competitions.

Will I Am Not

Does be funny when people come into threads and talk about things they haven’t the first clue about or interest in until it clashes with something they do have an interest in.

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Not being able to "spot the difference" is irrelevant, we all know what the criteria has been for millenia.

Visual clues are very much relevant, and relying on our other senses when we don’t have the ability to process visual clues is how we have determined criteria for millennia before the study of biology was ever a thing, before the invention of technology allowed us to see that visual clues are notoriously unreliable and inadequate, but suitable for most interactions. I generally describe people as “yer one with the tits”, or “yer man with the stupid head”, and believe it or not, it’s incredibly effective in conveying an idea to whomever I’m speaking to, about whomever I’m speaking about. “Preferred pronouns” are surplus to requirements.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But Laurel Hubbard does meet the criteria, and that’s why they were selected following qualification, precisely because they met the eligibility criteria to compete in the competition.

Yes, Hubbard meets the criteria but I think the point a lot of posters here are making is that the criteria that allows Hubbard to compete is very unfair to biological females.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You do, you do it all the time and it’s a perfectly natural thing to do,

No I don't and didn't give my myself a pat on the back ,but I do crack a smile on occasion

One eyed Jack

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yes, Hubbard meets the criteria but I think the point a lot of posters here are making is that the criteria that allows Hubbard to compete is very unfair to biological females.

Oh I completely get the point, but what a lot of posters here appear to be overlooking is the fact that if the criteria which allow athletes like Hubbard to compete are reduced to such a point that they would exclude athletes like Hubbard from competing… not only will they exclude athletes like Hubbard from competing, but they would exclude far more women from competing because they don’t meet the criteria, as is what happened in Caster Semenyas case and other athletes like her who are women, they just don’t meet the criteria set by the IOC or the WA or other governing bodies to compete in their women’s competitions.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

No I don't and didn't give my myself a pat on the back ,but I do crack a smile on occasion

You make judgements about people based upon their appearance all the time, and based upon her appearance in the case of Caster Semenya, you concluded based upon your assessment that something was off. If she hadn’t stood out, you wouldn’t have thought something was off.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point is that it’s simply the case that we all have our own individual standards of what does or doesn’t constitute our already formed judgements about what does or doesn’t meet those criteria by which we determine what is or isn’t a woman. If a person doesn’t meet the criteria, then in our opinion they’re not a woman.


Maybe you can spot the difference, but I can’t -


Laurel Hubbard


Andrea Thompson

Huh? It's fairly obvious which one is female there. If you had chosen a picture of Hubbard standing it would be even more obvious.

Anyway, doesn't really matter how they look. Hubbard is a male person.

'cuz it seems to bear saying: "woman" does not mean "collection of curves, glitter and pink I personally find attractive."

Christ.