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
First olympic transgender athlete to compete at Tokyo 2020 **MOD NOTE IN OP**
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Thsts a bit unfair - "insincere virtue signaling" , is that what you think it is?
The argument against women competing against men is very compelling, despite your contention.
I don’t think it’s unfair or unreasonable to point out that they wouldn’t give a damn about Stowers if it weren’t for Hubbard. I know that wasn’t your intention, but it’s the intention of some people who are using Stowers to suggest that she was “denied”, because of Hubbard. Stowers experience as a victim of sexual violence shouldn’t be used to argue she is more worthy of a place than Hubbard because being a victim of sexual violence is not one of the criteria for eligibility or qualification.
They’re going to find thousands of women who were “displaced” by men in that case, the very same as detransitioners are used to argue against gender affirmative therapies and medical and surgical interventions. Nothing would satisfy them only the exclusion of what they call biological males from being classed as women, and that’s all they’ve got, is finding people who they can portray as victims, like this woman who failed a drug test for what she rationalised must have been the burrito, not just any burrito though, an authentic Mexican burrito -
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Maybe that's the nub of it?
Maybe societal "acceptance" of trans women has a limit with regard to the displacement of "real" women. Maybe trans women shouldn't be classified as women, maybe the classification is transwomen.
And I think you've completely missed the point of Stowers.
Whatabout the burrito.
That’s absolutely the rub of it - biological females aren’t perceived as a threat to anyone, so there’s no uproar about biological females transitioning to become transgender men. It’s easy to portray men as a threat to everyone, and on that basis it’s even easier to suggest that biological males who transition are an even greater threat, because they can be portrayed as only doing so because they want to deceive people, they’re trying to cheat and they should be stopped. Their limit is zero acceptance, under any circumstances.
I’m not missing the point of Stowers, that’s why I pointed out that if it weren’t for Stowers, they would have found someone else, and there are no shortage of women who are victims of sexual violence. That’s why I make the point that if women who are victims of sexual violence is something they care about, they would be addressing that issue in its own right, and not just using a woman who has been a victim of sexual violence as a stick to beat Hubbard with.
The question of classification of women just doesn’t arise, because the antonym of transgender is not nothing, it’s cisgender, and that is from a biological point of view. From a social point of view, it doesn’t make any sense either to suggest that a woman is not a woman. There is no one criteria for how woman or man is defined in a social context. It’s a designation predicated upon subjective opinion. The antonym of real is artificial, and then you’re into the difficulties of classifying what the distinctions are between what constitutes a real woman, and what constitutes an artificial woman, notwithstanding the fact that unnecessary cosmetic surgery is far more popular among real women to give them artificial enhancements, than it is among real men. Are those women then no longer real women because they are artificially enhanced? I don’t think so, in just the same way as I don’t think biological males aren’t women. I don’t see the conflict, and anyone who is of an opposite view is welcome to it, but they have no authority to inflict their views upon anyone who disagrees with them, and treat anyone unjustly or unfairly who doesn’t comply with their views. That would be unreasonable behaviour. They’re complaining that language is being redefined and women are being erased in the same way as opponents of marriage equality claimed that marriage was being redefined - it clearly wasn’t, and isn’t, simply by broadening the criteria for eligibility, no more than biological women are being denied the opportunity to compete in the Olympics because the criteria for eligibility in the women’s events have been broadened.
The about the burrito is that the woman is claiming she is the victim of an injustice perpetrated against her, that the drug testing is flawed, even though they are the same standards which apply to every athlete regardless of their sex or gender identity who wishes to compete in the women’s events. The criteria aren’t based upon social definitions of what constitutes a woman, they are based upon objective measurements of chemicals. In this particular woman’s case, she is cheating, and she got caught for it. There is no way her coach wouldn’t know what nandrolone is or it’s effects, or what other circumstances could cause what they claim is a false positive test result. The likelihood of what she claims is so remote as to be a completely unreasonable explanation. It’s only plausible as far as I’m concerned because I remember when I was going for a job and I had to do a medical test, and the results came back weeks later that even though I’d passed, they recommended I see my GP about a blood test for diabetes as my blood sugar levels were well outside the normal range. I remembered that before I’d gone in for the test, I’d had a breakfast roll and a 2ltr bottle of coke for breakfast that morning (not the most healthy, no :pac:), and it’s not unreasonable that she could go back in her food logs and see what she ate and narrow it down, but to the kind of specificity she claims? Highly unlikely. This coach explains it really well IMO -
The likes of Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro types will portray this athletes disqualification as unfair as a means to suggest that Hubbards qualification is unjustifiable, when one set of circumstances has literally nothing to do with the other. The athlete who was disqualified would have been disqualified anyway for failing the drugs test which applies equally to all athletes who wish to compete in women’s competitions.
The arguments for a separate category miss the point. Separate categories and competitions already exist, they have nothing to do with people who argue against their exclusion. It would be like suggesting that sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or discrimination based upon any of the other grounds of discrimination are justified because anyone who isn’t eligible based upon those criteria can simply band together and set up their own events. They already do, and they already have, but it does nothing to address the point people are making that the discrimination they face is unjustifiable and unfair, and using the same standards which are used to justify their exclusion - science, they have been able to demonstrate that they do not have an unfair advantage. That’s when those people who are opposed to the idea of people who are transgender bring out the social argument based upon identity politics, when they can’t use the scientific argument to justify unfair discrimination against people who are transgender.0 -
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »That’s absolutely the rub of it - biological females aren’t perceived as a threat to anyone, so there’s no uproar about biological females transitioning to become transgender men. It’s easy to portray men as a threat to everyone, and on that basis it’s even easier to suggest that biological males who transition are an even greater threat, because they can be portrayed as only doing so because they want to deceive people, they’re trying to cheat and they should be stopped. Their limit is zero acceptance, under any circumstances.
I’m not missing the point of Stowers, that’s why I pointed out that if it weren’t for Stowers, they would have found someone else, and there are no shortage of women who are victims of sexual violence. That’s why I make the point that if women who are victims of sexual violence is something they care about, they would be addressing that issue in its own right, and not just using a woman who has been a victim of sexual violence as a stick to beat Hubbard with.
The question of classification of women just doesn’t arise, because the antonym of transgender is not nothing, it’s cisgender, and that is from a biological point of view. From a social point of view, it doesn’t make any sense either to suggest that a woman is not a woman. There is no one criteria for how woman or man is defined in a social context. It’s a designation predicated upon subjective opinion. The antonym of real is artificial, and then you’re into the difficulties of classifying what the distinctions are between what constitutes a real woman, and what constitutes an artificial woman, notwithstanding the fact that unnecessary cosmetic surgery is far more popular among real women to give them artificial enhancements, than it is among real men. Are those women then no longer real women because they are artificially enhanced? I don’t think so, in just the same way as I don’t think biological males aren’t women. I don’t see the conflict, and anyone who is of an opposite view is welcome to it, but they have no authority to inflict their views upon anyone who disagrees with them, and treat anyone unjustly or unfairly who doesn’t comply with their views. That would be unreasonable behaviour. They’re complaining that language is being redefined and women are being erased in the same way as opponents of marriage equality claimed that marriage was being redefined - it clearly wasn’t, and isn’t, simply by broadening the criteria for eligibility, no more than biological women are being denied the opportunity to compete in the Olympics because the criteria for eligibility in the women’s events have been broadened.
The about the burrito is that the woman is claiming she is the victim of an injustice perpetrated against her, that the drug testing is flawed, even though they are the same standards which apply to every athlete regardless of their sex or gender identity who wishes to compete in the women’s events. The criteria aren’t based upon social definitions of what constitutes a woman, they are based upon objective measurements of chemicals. In this particular woman’s case, she is cheating, and she got caught for it. There is no way her coach wouldn’t know what nandrolone is or it’s effects, or what other circumstances could cause what they claim is a false positive test result. The likelihood of what she claims is so remote as to be a completely unreasonable explanation. It’s only plausible as far as I’m concerned because I remember when I was going for a job and I had to do a medical test, and the results came back weeks later that even though I’d passed, they recommended I see my GP about a blood test for diabetes as my blood sugar levels were well outside the normal range. I remembered that before I’d gone in for the test, I’d had a breakfast roll and a 2ltr bottle of coke for breakfast that morning (not the most healthy, no :pac:), and it’s not unreasonable that she could go back in her food logs and see what she ate and narrow it down, but to the kind of specificity she claims? Highly unlikely. This coach explains it really well IMO -
The likes of Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro types will portray this athletes disqualification as unfair as a means to suggest that Hubbards qualification is unjustifiable, when one set of circumstances has literally nothing to do with the other. The athlete who was disqualified would have been disqualified anyway for failing the drugs test which applies equally to all athletes who wish to compete in women’s competitions.
The arguments for a separate category miss the point. Separate categories and competitions already exist, they have nothing to do with people who argue against their exclusion. It would be like suggesting that sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or discrimination based upon any of the other grounds of discrimination are justified because anyone who isn’t eligible based upon those criteria can simply band together and set up their own events. They already do, and they already have, but it does nothing to address the point people are making that the discrimination they face is unjustifiable and unfair, and using the same standards which are used to justify their exclusion - science, they have been able to demonstrate that they do not have an unfair advantage. That’s when those people who are opposed to the idea of people who are transgender bring out the social argument based upon identity politics, when they can’t use the scientific argument to justify unfair discrimination against people who are transgender.
This is exactly what we are up against.
This reminds me of Young Earth Creationists. I remember, many years ago, being stupid enough to debate them. "Easy!" I thought. Not so easy, though! They come very well armed and, no matter how obvious your points, they respond with, "But what about this, explain that!". Many times, you can't explain it - simply because you haven't researched it or the science they are claiming supports their view. Throw in some philosophical acrobatics and you can begin to look like a clown. But they nonetheless take that as a victory for themselves.
We see exactly the same phenomenon with transgender ideology. Those who are well armed will, like One Eyed Jack, bombard you with philosophical, ideological, and sometimes scientific points. You can get so bogged down in the detail that it becomes messy and confusing. That's the point, though - and it's the same as what you see with YEC, and many other kinds of conspiracy theory. "Make things really messy and maybe we can contort a kernel of truth to support an otherwise wildly unlikely outcome", kind of approach.
I've come to the conclusion there is no debating that kind of ideological wall.
It's pure dogmatism. And you can never change a person's mind who is dogmatically wedded to their worldview.
The fact that we are even debating whether biological-born males should later participate in women's sport, if they meet certain criteria, is shocking in and of itself.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »That’s absolutely the rub of it - biological females aren’t perceived as a threat to anyone, so there’s no uproar about biological females transitioning to become transgender men. It’s easy to portray men as a threat to everyone, and on that basis it’s even easier to suggest that biological males who transition are an even greater threat, because they can be portrayed as only doing so because they want to deceive people, they’re trying to cheat and they should be stopped. Their limit is zero acceptance, under any circumstances.
I’m not missing the point of Stowers, that’s why I pointed out that if it weren’t for Stowers, they would have found someone else, and there are no shortage of women who are victims of sexual violence. That’s why I make the point that if women who are victims of sexual violence is something they care about, they would be addressing that issue in its own right, and not just using a woman who has been a victim of sexual violence as a stick to beat Hubbard with.
The question of classification of women just doesn’t arise, because the antonym of transgender is not nothing, it’s cisgender, and that is from a biological point of view. From a social point of view, it doesn’t make any sense either to suggest that a woman is not a woman. There is no one criteria for how woman or man is defined in a social context. It’s a designation predicated upon subjective opinion. The antonym of real is artificial, and then you’re into the difficulties of classifying what the distinctions are between what constitutes a real woman, and what constitutes an artificial woman, notwithstanding the fact that unnecessary cosmetic surgery is far more popular among real women to give them artificial enhancements, than it is among real men. Are those women then no longer real women because they are artificially enhanced? I don’t think so, in just the same way as I don’t think biological males aren’t women. I don’t see the conflict, and anyone who is of an opposite view is welcome to it, but they have no authority to inflict their views upon anyone who disagrees with them, and treat anyone unjustly or unfairly who doesn’t comply with their views. That would be unreasonable behaviour. They’re complaining that language is being redefined and women are being erased in the same way as opponents of marriage equality claimed that marriage was being redefined - it clearly wasn’t, and isn’t, simply by broadening the criteria for eligibility, no more than biological women are being denied the opportunity to compete in the Olympics because the criteria for eligibility in the women’s events have been broadened.
The about the burrito is that the woman is claiming she is the victim of an injustice perpetrated against her, that the drug testing is flawed, even though they are the same standards which apply to every athlete regardless of their sex or gender identity who wishes to compete in the women’s events. The criteria aren’t based upon social definitions of what constitutes a woman, they are based upon objective measurements of chemicals. In this particular woman’s case, she is cheating, and she got caught for it. There is no way her coach wouldn’t know what nandrolone is or it’s effects, or what other circumstances could cause what they claim is a false positive test result. The likelihood of what she claims is so remote as to be a completely unreasonable explanation. It’s only plausible as far as I’m concerned because I remember when I was going for a job and I had to do a medical test, and the results came back weeks later that even though I’d passed, they recommended I see my GP about a blood test for diabetes as my blood sugar levels were well outside the normal range. I remembered that before I’d gone in for the test, I’d had a breakfast roll and a 2ltr bottle of coke for breakfast that morning (not the most healthy, no :pac:), and it’s not unreasonable that she could go back in her food logs and see what she ate and narrow it down, but to the kind of specificity she claims? Highly unlikely. This coach explains it really well IMO -
The likes of Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro types will portray this athletes disqualification as unfair as a means to suggest that Hubbards qualification is unjustifiable, when one set of circumstances has literally nothing to do with the other. The athlete who was disqualified would have been disqualified anyway for failing the drugs test which applies equally to all athletes who wish to compete in women’s competitions.
The arguments for a separate category miss the point. Separate categories and competitions already exist, they have nothing to do with people who argue against their exclusion. It would be like suggesting that sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or discrimination based upon any of the other grounds of discrimination are justified because anyone who isn’t eligible based upon those criteria can simply band together and set up their own events. They already do, and they already have, but it does nothing to address the point people are making that the discrimination they face is unjustifiable and unfair, and using the same standards which are used to justify their exclusion - science, they have been able to demonstrate that they do not have an unfair advantage. That’s when those people who are opposed to the idea of people who are transgender bring out the social argument based upon identity politics, when they can’t use the scientific argument to justify unfair discrimination against people who are transgender.
Trans/cis was lifted from isomers where it has a function in chirality.
The identifier cis on the otherhand is wholly superflous and has no use outside of trans advocates' arguments.
A woman is a woman not a cis woman
A man is a man
A transwoman is a transwoman, the prefix is required to identify the fact the person is not a biological woman. Its not a biological argument or classification - its a TRA/gender studies nonsense.
This has been well ventilated in other threads.
Your entire argument is a homepage of gender theory with sprinkles of bits of science that can. also say the opposite of what you argue.
Your argument seems to boil down to , why shouldn't she compete, ignoring the why she shouldn't.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »This is exactly what we are up against.
This reminds me of Young Earth Creationists. I remember, many years ago, being stupid enough to debate them. "Easy!" I thought. Not so easy, though! They come very well armed and, no matter how obvious your points, they respond with, "But what about this, explain that!". Many times, you can't explain it - simply because you haven't researched it or the science they are claiming supports their view. Throw in some philosophical acrobatics and you can begin to look like a clown. But they nonetheless take that as a victory for themselves.
We see exactly the same phenomenon with transgender ideology. Those who are well armed will, like One Eyed Jack, bombard you with philosophical, ideological, and sometimes scientific points. You can get so bogged down in the detail that it becomes messy and confusing. That's the point, though - and it's the same as what you see with YEC, and many other kinds of conspiracy theory. "Make things really messy and maybe we can contort a kernel of truth to support an otherwise wildly unlikely outcome", kind of approach.
I've come to the conclusion there is no debating that kind of ideological wall.
It's pure dogmatism. And you can never change a person's mind who is dogmatically wedded to their worldview.
The fact that we are even debating whether biological-born males should later participate in women's sport, if they meet certain criteria, is shocking in and of itself.
You’re complaining that it’s dogmatism and that people with evidence are dogmatically wedded to their world view are akin to YEC, but you with no evidence and too lazy to bother doing your own research expect that your claims should be taken seriously enough to justify irrational and unjustifiable discrimination…
Right. That makes sense.
As it happens, I was reminiscing about Riverdance last night as I used to be a competitive Irish dancer (my click hip gave me an advantage in those circumstances) and I still have an interest in competitions. One thing I always hated however, was the costume we had to wear. While it allowed for a degree of freedom of movement, it was quite restrictive in other ways -
It was quite the revelation when Michael Flatley pinged across the stage like he’d been shot from a catapult, it was only then at that moment I understood what my Irish dancing teacher meant when she said “push the floor down with your feet”. I was thinking literally, “the floors going nowhere Goddammit!”, I just couldn’t understand what she meant, but once I understood it I was a much better dancer for it
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZZsF-Nmd5Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTgpgaTRUsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iniYyJz6y7A
Advertisement