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

"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. "

Has to be the biggest load of absolute sexist bunkum I have read in many a year.

Laydees are round, and soft, with bosom's, and smooth skin like silk and mens are lean (tall? hairy? flat chested?) and apparently that is that. Every single human being must conform to a 1950s casting call stereotype - no deviation permitted.

Well, that will come as a surprise to the lean women, the rounded men, the hairy faced female (there goes the hair removal industry), the hairless men.

No one said anything about being soft and having smooth like skin other than you. Rounded refers to a person's pelvis, which are shaped differently between men and women, as men cannot give birth. I see we're still going for the undermining of basic science tactic, now trying to suggest that sex differences are 'sexist'. Someone best tell mother nature. Anything to say re the chromosomal part of the definition, sexist too?

Here's a simple introduction to the differences between male and female pelvis structure:

https://med.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Anatomy_and_Physiology/Book%3A_Anatomy_and_Physiology_(Boundless)/7%3A_Skeletal_System_-_Parts_of_the_Skeleton/7.7%3A_The_Hip/7.7E%3A_Comparison_of_Female_and_Male_Pelves

I already quoted a given definition of drag queens viz

"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."

You wish to note that first. Secondly none of that stops a person who is a drag queen rag identifying as a "woman" for any period of time either independently or for the purpose of the RoT

Or are you suggesting that the new RoT criteria that "Anyone who identifies as woman" is eligible to enter the competition is wrong? Or that it should be now restricted to only biological females and "transwomen"?

If so why?

Given we are discussing people who are Transgender - not transbiology - taking part in the RoT frankly biology is as relevant as chromosomes - which is to say not even slightly.

Not one person has claimed biology can be completely disregarded - people are saying "Mother Nature" (your term) f'ed up and the biology got it wrong. People are saying GENDER AND BIOLOGY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Apologies for shouting but this has been said many many times now. In the vast majority of people they align. These people are 'cis', in a minority of people they do not align - some of these people are biologically opposite to the gender they believe (apologies to trans people for the clunky terms that don't really fully explain it) and so they 'identify' as that 'opposite' i.e they are 'trans gender'.

If biology and gender always aligned there would be no such thing as transgender - but they don't. And this has been recognised for hundreds of years across diverse cultures. Some people are not the gender their biological body would 'say' they are. They are in the wrong bloody biological body. That is the blasted issue.

No I can’t, and neither can you, nor can anyone, because of the simple fact that ANY definition, doesn’t matter whether it’s biological or sociological or anything else, will exclude anyone who does not conform to how the person attempting to suggest their definition is the only one which everyone should accept, is exclusionary in one way or another.

It’s the fundamental basis of classification - sorting people according to observed characteristics! That’s why I pointed out that your “test”, is nothing more than your opinion, which nobody is obligated to pay any heed to.

No do you?

Let me quote the given definition again that you missed.

"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"*

"THE Rose of Tralee has announced that the event will now "welcome" anyone who identifies as a woman"

Afaik they haven't given that qualification a time limit

So as such where dragqueens qualify for the RoT - why do you wish to exclude them?

Ehh, getting ahead of yourself there. You didn’t put forward the argument that a sociological definition of woman couldn’t be given. You wanted a definition that was suited to your terms, which you called your test, and tried to goad anyone into taking YOUR test. All I did was point out the glaring flaw in your argument.

The term woman, and what woman refers to, was never, and has never been rooted in biology. It was rooted in mens expectations of women. Women at the time when the classification was conceived were considered the property of men, with no distinct rights of their own, because they were not recognised in law.

It’s law which governs rights and freedom from discrimination, not biology, so if you wish to argue what rights anyone is or isn’t entitled to, you would have to confine your arguments within the bounds of law. Not biology, but law.

Drag Queens as a collective group have zero to do with the Rose of Tralee.

Only possible reason to introduce them to the topic is to drag the thread down another rabbit hole.

What next - shall we discuss Drag Kings who are cis ( a short- hand term for 'people whose gender aligns with their biological sex' which is far easier to write then 'people whose gender aligns with their biological sex' but still some people, usually those 'people whose gender aligns with their biological sex' get their gender specific underwear in a twist about it) entering in full male drag?

We already have had a poster who believes trans men should be allowed to enter (because they are biologically women) so the idea of a Rose with a beard and a trouser bulge has already been approved by someone who is gender critical.

I would strongly disagree that as a group - they have nothing to do with the RoT.

"Anyone who identifies as a woman" is eligible to enter the RoT competition and yes that will include those with "trouser bulge"

And that's no rabbit hole. Its an open invitation.

If you have an issue with that then probably best leave it with you.

And whilst "cis" while may be described by some as a "short hand term" - it is infact a controversial and relatively recently made up description attributed to others.

And whilst I'd agree sure some are getting their "gender specific" or maybe even gender fluid underwear in a twist over the RoT - people have a right universally to their own identity and not one foisted upon them by others.

Strange you don't seem to agree about that. But no matter.

I'm assuming you were born male and call yourself a man? I think you said that already?

Assuming so then as soon as you apply for the cert or call yourself a woman then surely that's a transition?

But I know you are just throwing out hypothetical scenarios and in reality is not going to happen. This is not something people do for fun, that's the reality.

If I am mistaken regarding your transition, then I apologise and like I say, good luck with the competition!

Yes it is a useful function of language to be able to define things, in fact is hard to proceed otherwise. I see you have still not tried to give any definition as to what you mean when you refer to a women/man in a sociological sense.

And I am indeed arguing how things exist in nature. Observing nature is one of the fundamentals behind science, we have done so, and seen that there are, across the animal kingdon, two sexes. We have then been able to observe these differences and give precise definitions to what has been observed, including for humans. These resulting definitions do not 'suit me', I'm simply able to accept how things are and what it is that we have observed.

Everyone has the same authority as you do to define language however they see fit.

Sure, but what isn't very useful is when these people, all of them, never explain to anyone else what these new definitions are. So, will you? You could decide re-define the word dog, if you liked, as a 'person's regular female companion with whom they have a romantic or sexual relationship with', but unless you inform people of this new definition, that is not the one used by anyone else, people will assume you are referring to you know, your dog, which could of course lead to some strange and potentially awkward situations.

'I can't wait to make love to my dog later'

'I'm going for a romantic meal later with my dog'

'My dog has gone away with all her dogs'

Pull this off and I promise I will watch and support you in the RoT

Don't tempt me Bannasidhe! 😅

Jesus Christ you must really struggle with “The Rose of Tralee” 😂

Tempt you?

I'm challenging you.