Rose Of Tralee now accepting trans applicants (Threadbanned List in OP)

red herring,

no. I do not "think they are not female"

Jeez.

A person can't make a reference to what someone has posted now without some triumphant balderdash being aimed at them.

Have you said to posters here that they deep down believe a particular thing? Yes. In this very thread.

Is that thing opposite to the thing they repeatedly say they believe? Yes.

Have you categorically told other what posters what they "know"? Yes. Very recently in this thread.

How exactly have I insulted you by referring to things you posted?

But if you genuinely believe I have in any way launched a personal attack I urge you to report me. No need for thick skins when there are mods around to ensure no one is personally attacked.

This is one of the more stupid and ill thought out arguments that pops up on these threads.

You mean apart from the idea that the existing rules should now be changed to require women to give a DNA sample in order to qualify?

The intent of pointing out that women who do not fit with a definition of ‘biological women’, is to point out the fallacy which underlies the use of the term ‘biological women’ as a social classification.

Until the day someone can produce a definition of what a women is supposed to be that doesn't

a. Engage in circular logic

Or b. Resort to stereotype

Than the word women will remain based in biology ie an adult human female. Across all the trans threads I've read on boards, and now am partaking in, I have never seen this challenge even attempted let alone been met.

A female as pertaining to humans can also be defined chromosomely, if that particular definition isn't rigorous enough or you'd rather it be extended to clear up misunderstandings.

I also do not know why you believe a DNA test should be used to qualify. Under the new rules, anyone can enter, male or female, once they merely identify as being a woman. And if thats what the RoT want then best of luck to them.

Listen, if this is the level this discussion is going to continue at, then I won't bother. Here's another definition if you want:

'a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.'

The pertinent point Bubbly, is that there are two sexes. Someone with breasts, a vagina, no facial hair, x chromosomes, a rounded body but no ovaries is a women as they do not have facial hair, a penis, testicles, sperm, and a leaner body. It's very simple stuff, and the attempt to make it appear more complicated than it is is intentional, as you require the undermining of basic science in order to keep up the idea that trans-women are women. This is the same tactic that is used by people arguing against, for example, climate change, whereby they intentionally become obscurist with the intention of finding one, very minor issue, that they can pretend is a very large issue that undermines the established science itself. It doesn't.

The RoT allow everyone to enter, male or female. I could be a women at the festival if I wanted. And that's their choice, and as I said, good luck to them.

The term “biological female” engages in the same sort of using stereotypes in order to classify and distinguish between male and female in biology based upon reproduction. That’s quite distinct from women and men as social classifications, terms which are NOT based upon biology, which also employ stereotypes in order to distinguish between one social class and the other.

The terms women and men are social classes, they are not based in biology. It’s for this very reason that women and men who are infertile does not mean they are not still classed as either women or men. It’s why women and men who undergo medical interventions and surgical procedures to enhance their physical attributes does not imply they are no longer biological organisms, but are now synthetic or artificial organisms.

The organisers of the Rose of Tralee care no more about biology than you do, as their criteria are based entirely upon social stereotypes where the winner of the competition is determined by their personality, and not by their looks or their chromosomes.

The reason I pointed out that the argument to change the rules to require a DNA test is because that is precisely the only way in which it could be determined that a woman meets the definition which suits the definition which you are attempting to put forward as the only criteria which should be relevant to everyone. As it turns out, people don’t care much for your criteria any more than they didn’t before, as the term “biological woman” is seen for what it is - an attempt to reduce women to nothing more than the sum of their parts.

Well no as you say some who may wish to enter the competition may Identify as "transwomen"

And to be fair the RoT which has always been somewhat a parody of itself has simply declared the competition open to anyone deciding they want to identify as a "woman" that could include drag queens etc

"A drag queen is a person, usually male, who uses drag clothing and makeup to imitate and often exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes. In modern times, drag queens are associated with gay men and gay culture, but they can be of any gender and sexual identity."

Again, you are trying to undermine clear cut, basic science. A women who has had a mastectomie will have had breasts in the first place. Some women can get facial hair yes, but if they have ovaries, breasts etc. Then they are female and as such women. If they have facial, hair testes and a penis then they are male. Again, it's simple, simple stuff.

Why not take the challenge above, and give your sociological definition of what a women or man is?