There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.
Comments
-
*
0 -
Your eyes are confirming what you already believed based upon nothing, and now you have an anecdote to confirm your prejudices. You’re entitled to claim that science and biology supports your opinions, but it’s glaringly obvious your objection to the participation of people who transgender in sports is based neither upon biology nor science, but prejudice.
There’s no need for Emperor’s New Clothes or anything else, a fable which could be applied both ways given you present “the most prominent trans activists” as some sort of an authority on the matter in support of your own personal opinion that discrimination against people who are transgender is justifiable based upon the evidence of a single anecdote.
It’s like you imagine that context doesn’t matter, that the very thing you’re relying on has nothing to do with science or biology, and everything to do with your own personal feelings on the matter, backed up by people who agree with you, as if that should matter to anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
It’s essentially as though you imagine you have the authority to determine other peoples rights, and if they draw attention to themselves by winning in competition, they’re somehow “damaging the cause” so should go back to being invisible - out of sight, out of mind. You can see why it wouldn’t just be people who are transgender would refuse to do that, in spite of yours and anyone else’s efforts to humiliate and coerce people into submission to your ideals.
1 -
Here’s a paragraph from a letter from the parents of the female swimmers in the race. It’s part of a long letter published in the NYP this weekend. You don’t accept any of this?
15 -
You claimed Lia Thomas was the #1 women’s swimmer in the NCAA. Your proof of this was an article which said she was the best in one stroke over two distances.
Do you accept that your statement was misleading (possibly unintentionally) and that you have no evidence that she’s the best collegiate swimmer period?
I’m not talking about anything else. I don’t care for letters, protests, etc. People involved are making their feelings known about it.
You, on the other hand, are making statements which just are not true. That’s the only thing I’m focusing on here.
0 -
At the risk of stating the obvious, but you’ve not only avoided answering the question, you’ve gone off on an entirely different tangent to ask a question of your own on the basis of yet another image which you’re posting which is just as misleading as your last image.
I mean, for someone who claims to value truth and what they see with their own eyes, no disrespect intended but you’re making a poor effort of practicing what you preach.
Here’s a link to full letter, for context -
1 -
Are we adding humans to that list now? Did someone say 'anti science' and 'anti biology'
3 -
I think we should all be able to cut through the bluster here.
Should a man who thinks he is a woman be able to be recognised as his preferred gender and claim to be the fastest woman in a race when he is demonstrably not a woman?
Some say yes, some say no.
I don't think a common ground will be found as some people think that the fact that someone is a man doesn't matter when it comes to defining sex and some people feel that it absolutely does.
If sex can be malleable, why can't age, height or weight?
1 -
I have no idea how your brain is perceiving this letter. I imagine that somehow you are reading it and seeing it as supportive of Thomas. You appear to have a huge capacity to view things only through your own very narrow perspective. It’s very odd.
10 -
No difference between it happening in nature and medical intervention/surgery/drugs it seems
1 -
Advertisement
-
A bit of googling tells me that Caitlyn Jenner is calling bullsh*t on this. Navratilova, too. That's good enough for me.
1 -
Oh you don’t know the half of it 😂
But no, it’s a fair comment to admit that you don’t know how I’m perceiving the letter, because I never gave any opinion on the letter itself, I only sought to provide context for the image you posted which was just a snippet of the full letter.
For what it’s worth though, I don’t see the letter as supportive of Thomas. I see the letter as an appeal to reason using the same rhetoric which was used to argue against women being treated as equals in the past when it was argued that science and biology not only supported the continuation of discrimination against women, but entirely justified the discrimination, and provided what were considered at the time legitimate reasons for arguing that women did not belong in public life, but should be relegated to the domestic sphere as they were biologically inferior to men.
Men were superior in every way, and apparently this wasn’t just men’s opinion, it was science, and you couldn’t argue with science in the same way as you couldn’t argue with religion before then. Apparently if God had wanted all humans to be created equal, he’d have made us that way, and this explanation to justify discrimination was used against all sorts of groups of people in society who, as the authors of the letter suggest, “didn’t fit societal norms” -
No athlete is excluded from sport when sex-based categories are protected. We can welcome people who do not fit societal norms and still recognize biology.
I mean, you made reference earlier to Thomas’ genitalia, but if it were proposed that ‘nude parades’ in women’s sports were reintroduced by way of arguing that it was in order to prevent men from participating in women’s sports, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest you wouldn’t be in favour of the idea. Thankfully the IOC has done away with that sort of behaviour -
https://www.mic.com/articles/82163/the-story-behind-the-olympics-outrageous-sex-testing/amp
I don’t see how you think it’s in any way fair to introduce such disproportionate measures which it is argued are intended to maintain the integrity of the sport, when what they actually do in reality is perpetuate discrimination against a group of people in society on the basis of their gender.
It’s pretty obvious what arguing discrimination against people who are transgender is justified is intended to achieve, and it’s not in order to protect the integrity of women’s sports or to promote fairness or protect women and girls or any of the rest of it.
All those issues have long existed in women’s sports and have never been addressed, and will continue to exist regardless of whether transgender athletes are permitted to participate, or whether they are discriminated against based upon prejudice. They’re only being presented as a means to justify discrimination against people who are transgender, but that doesn’t address the issues which advocates are willing to acknowledge exist in sports already which have long involved the participation of men in positions where they already govern the rules of any sport where they are perfectly aware of the issues which exist in every sport in relation to the abuse and discrimination against women and girls already which is what actually inhibits women and girls participation in sports.
For those women who don’t rock the boat and wish to maintain the status quo, or the ‘societal norms’ in sports as it were, their loyalty is rewarded with platitudes and being used as the poster women who overcame the odds to achieve recognition in their chosen sport. It’s the epitome of pulling the ladder up after themselves, which is why Martina Navratilova who was once promoted as being a role model for young people to look up to, is now using her position to argue against the participation of people who ‘don’t conform to societal norms’ -
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2A32AR
That’s simply known as an argument from authority. It’s a fallacious argument which is neither grounded in science nor biology, but ‘societal norms’. It’s disingenuous to claim to ‘welcome people who do not fit societal norms’, while arguing at the same time that they should be discriminated against because they don’t fit societal norms.
That’s not making people feel welcome, but don’t just take my word for it. There are plenty of people who feel the same way, who empathise with the discrimination other people face and the feeling of being made to feel unwelcome, on the basis of their own experiences and the experiences of other people on the basis of ‘not fitting in with societal norms’ -
Asked for her own opinion on whether Thomas should be allowed to race, Sullivan downplayed the competitive ramifications while lamenting the effects of the criticism Thomas has taken on her well-being.
“I think people are asking for this big, well thought-out explanation, especially for me as a gay swimmer, but my explanation is pretty simple. I don’t care. It comes down to the fact that when I race, I don’t race for the status or for the gold or for whatever. That’s just not why I do it. I love winning, don’t get me wrong. Getting a silver medal was so cool, and that’s always exciting, but I swim for the people around me,” Sullivan said.
“I feel bad for Lia because imagine being on a team where you know some people don’t want you there. That’s just a terrible environment to be in. I feel like I’m in an environment at Texas where I’m accepted by everyone here. If they’re not, they haven’t verbalized it to me. They’ve kept it to themselves, very supportive of my relationship, love it when I make my jokes. They’re very supportive of who I am as a person, and I just feel bad that Lia doesn’t have that.”
1 -
You’re accusing me of straw-manning while attempting to attribute things to me which I’ve never either even said, nor indicated in any of my posts. No wonder it’s frustrating for you, but there’s fcukall I can do about that.
What I will do though, is ask you to point out where I’ve ever said I was cool with anyone, either man or woman, parading around the changing rooms naked. Fcuk it I’ll save you the bother - I’ve never said anything remotely even close to that. I’d find that kind of behaviour objectionable whether it was being perpetrated by either a man or a woman.
I’ll also save you the trouble of providing evidence for your claim that I’ve ever even so much as suggested anyone was transphobic, for any reason. You won’t find evidence of that either, because I don’t think in those terms. I don’t care one way or the other whether they are or they aren’t.
What I do care about is when anyone attempts to justify their attitudes and behaviour towards other people on the basis that their prejudices are that person’s problem. Were that sort of nonsense to be permitted as a legitimate justification for protecting women and girls, it would mean legitimising and codifying a curfew in law which would only apply to men. Science and biology would support the idea, on the basis that men, by virtue of their biology, are predisposed to showing off their cock and balls.
Other people might well suggest that you’re arguing biological determinism, but what do they know? 🙄
0 -
Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 9,807 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 8221
Thomas came 8th last night.
Standby for the “Transphobia Ruined My Swimming Career” book deal and world tour.
7 -
Thinking that women should not be forced to compete with men (and all that that entails) isn't a prejudice. But, sure you know that. Angels on a pinhead stuff is all that's left.
4 -
Trans activism is one of the many new fundamental ideologies replacing fundamental religions. Ironically you will find some of the strictest adherents here frequent the Atheism forum to rail endlessly against the fundamentalism of Catholicism.
At least with Catholicism there was an ever present chance of redemption. Not so with the trans community.
You must 100% agree that women in traditionally safe female spaces such as prison, womens refuge, psychiatric wards changing rooms toilets etc are in absolutely no danger from
trans women . You must 100% agree that any woman who complains or objects at all is a transphobic bigot of the worst kind and must be evicerated. JK Rowling didn’t even complain as such, she just pointed out a biological fact and has been metaphorically hung drawn and quartered as a result.
20 -
Advertisement
-
you actually read their posts? I just scroll past and that takes long enough 😂
16 -
I’m scratching my head here wondering what you mean by ‘an ever present chance of redemption’ with regard to Catholicism when it’s kinda built into the ideology that humans are born sinful in the first place. It seems like an obvious point to make that anyone who isn’t Catholic wouldn’t subscribe or submit to that ideology, and therefore would be regarded as being beyond redemption unless they repent and recognise the authority of the Catholic Church.
That’s not nearly so bizarre though as your claim that prisons, women’s refuges and psychiatric wards are traditionally safe spaces for women, because they’re traditionally about as safe for women as the laundries were safe for women. I don’t know how that’s even an argument tbh when it would seem far more reasonable to examine why women end up in prisons, women’s refuges and psychiatric wards in the first place, or why for that matter they ended up in the laundries which by your standards would have been regarded at the time as a ‘safe space’ for women where they weren’t in danger from men. I mean, you’re pointing out the symptoms, but ignoring the cause.
I honestly don’t care all that much for JK Rowling or her opinions on anything, but she didn’t come under fire for pointing out a biological fact. She used the literature from a charity organisation trying to educate people in developing countries about healthcare and the importance of hygiene. In doing so they acknowledged that while people may not refer to themselves as women, they still menstruate, and their personal hygiene and healthcare was important. JK interpreted this as referring to men, when it was actually referring to people who do not refer to themselves as women.
It wasn’t even due to her own ignorance of human biology, science and medicine, which is about on a par with some people in developing countries who think boys menstruating is normal, and not indicative of a serious medical condition -
1 -
Be a refreshing change from reading Trans Women are killing women's sports due to genetic advantages.
An honest read would be "woman who is transgender swims slower than women who are not transgender during swim meet"
1 -
JK interpreted this as referring to men, when it was actually referring to people who do not refer to themselves as women.
It wasn’t even due to her own ignorance of human biology, science and medicine, which is about on a par with some people in developing countries ...
or maybe its just that she thinks that women should be referred to as women, and men as men?
She used the literature from a charity organisation trying to educate people in developing countries about healthcare and the importance of hygiene. In doing so they acknowledged that while people may not refer to themselves as women, they still menstruate, and their personal hygiene and healthcare was important.
it was an opinion piece on a website very much aimed at the 'elite', rather than trying to educate the ordinary person on the ground.
WHO WE ARE
We host 100+ events a year to spark dialogue between world leaders, the private sector, and the global development community on critical issues that feature - or should feature - on the global agenda.
EDIT, that's two Wikipedia pages linked in the last day that should be deleted and replaced with a couple redirects
0 -
Simple solution. Remove gender from sports...
Next years 6 nations. Team gets picked from the best players, regardless of being male female, or neither.
If they're good enough, they play.
1 -
Advertisement
-
or maybe its just that she thinks that women should be referred to as women, and men as men?
Or maybe she’s just a cnut.
Who knows? Who cares? 🤷🏻♂️
2 -
I can't speak for surfing or air rifling shooting, but the article you linked to about endurance running does not say that women have a genetic advantage over men in endurance sports. The article is basically a hope that there might be the possibility that women can be better than men in endurance sports, based on extremely flimsy evidence. It's a really badly written article with absolutely no science behind it at all... mainly just anecdotal observations which are little more than hopeful opinions.
There is actually tons and tons of data out there on ultra-endurance running, which if you go into it shows that, very unsurprisingly, men are generally just as advantaged in endurance sports which are decided on speed/strength, as they are in shorter distances. If you're actually genuinely interested I can point you in the direction of that data where you can go mine it for yourself.
The bottom line is that as usual even in endurance sports athletes of the male sex generally have a biological advantage over athletes of the female sex where speed or strength are factors in competitiveness (There is one event I can think of where speed and strength are minimal factors, and where you do get females competing very competitively as a result)
Endurance sports tend to be different than their shorter equivalents in that generally all categories are mixed together in the same race, with only the results split out by categories. This enables the possibility for the occasional event where a higher standard female wins outright. With enough events taking place occasionally the stars align and these unusual results occur. You never see this in shorter events as the events themselves are single-sex, as anyone who watches athletics events would know. Hence they never occur.
7 -
Trans activism is a central tenet of the church of WOKE
7 -
as long as you didn't suggest she might be transphobic, its all good
1 -
Simple solution. Remove gender from sports...
To repeat myself, OEJ believes that women's sport exists because of discrimination. Because as he says segregation of sport has nothing to do with physical differences between the sex's, but exists because of discrimination.
So, anyone who is fighting against discrimination generally, should be advocating for exactly your proposal. But I don't see that they are, which is bit curious. Instead they are advocating that trans women be part of women's sport which they say only exist's in the first place because of being discriminated against by men. So they are advocating trans-woman have a right be discrimination against like all women are in sport. That's an odd take on the idea of 'equality', i.e. everyone should be equally discriminated against.
8 -
The mental gymnastics involved here is off the scale. “Gender is nothing but a social construct. It doesn’t really exist. But I must nonetheless insist that you only use the gender pronouns that I choose to use on any given day and/or any given part of any day. If you don’t it will be considered violence on your behalf and a criminal act will be alleged. But now back to what I was saying….gender isn’t factual, it’s just a social construct which needs to be dispensed with…..”
7 -
They are though, but it’s not surprising that you don’t see it when there’s feckall interest in women’s participation in sports in any case.
It’s only when people who are transgender wanted to participate in sports in accordance with their gender that people got tetchy about the idea - they don’t have any interest in women’s sports themselves, and they don’t want people who are transgender participating in sports. They want to eliminate any evidence of people who are transgender because it doesn’t fit with what in their view are ‘social norms’ which must be upheld.
You’re painting a misleading portrait there that people who are transgender want to be discriminated against is the reason why they wish to participate in women’s sports, when that simply isn’t the case. It’s not as though women themselves want to be discriminated against in sports either, but they are, because people are more interested in men’s sports.
It’s not suggesting that everyone should be equally discriminated against (have you now forgotten men’s sports or something?), it’s that nobody should face discrimination on the basis of their gender in wishing to participate in sports, and if individuals are to be discriminated against, then there should be legitimate reason for their exclusion from participating.
What you’re more or less suggesting is the idea which is similar to the arguments during the marriage equality campaign - “sure homosexuals have the same right to enter into marriage as everyone else, what’s their problem?”, “where does it stop, people be wanting to marry their horse next! I want to marry my horse, why aren’t you campaigning for me to marry my horse? Ahh see, you don’t really want equality!”
It’s not any different to pointing out the fact that because Bruce Jenner competed in the men’s events, everyone who is transgender should be doing that, instead of arguing that they should be able to compete in events in accordance with their gender.
Would Caitlyn Jenner be where they are now, in a position to say declare it’s wrong for boys to compete with girls, if they had wanted to compete as Caitlyn Jenner back in the 1976 Olympics and gone on to become the All-American hero appearing on breakfast cereal boxes in every American household? I think it’s fair to say the answer to that question is probably not, which is why they kept their gender identity hidden for the best part of nearly 40 years, until they could no longer keep up the pretence.
What you’re arguing is no different to what people who are transgender have already done for centuries - kept it to themselves and tried to fit in with a society where they were fairly certain they would be subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment if they didn’t stay off the radar. Just look at the treatment which has been dished out to Lia Thomas and tell me that’s either fair or proportionate? It’s sending a message to anyone else who is transgender that they’d best keep it to themselves and fit in with societal expectations of their gender as it is perceived by other people, even if it comes at the cost of their mental health.
1 -
all the outrage these last few days is starting to have an effect. Brave girl standing up for herself:
6 -
I have zero interest in watching women's sport. I have a huge interest in ensuring that women still have the ability to play and compete in sports against solely against other women.
That isn't hypocritical. That isn't even odd.
I don't feign an interest in women's sport to demonise trans people.
I don't demonise trans people.
If a sport is segregated into male and female categories and divisions, only male and female people should play or compete in that designated category/division.
11 -
I thought she was guaranteed to be 1st every single time the way some people here are hopping up and down.
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
1 -
Advertisement
-
There should be races for females races for males and a third category races for trans people that is the obvious solution and the same with toilets so everyone has a place & a space. if that solution could be agreed on we would have less divisiveness and angry mob retorts.
1 -
-
there should be legitimate reason for their exclusion from participating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics_–_Men%27s_decathlon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics_–_Women%27s_pentathlon
compare and contrast
0 -
-
Any comparison is useless because the data does not include any openly transgender athletes competing! What data is available on the performance of transgender athletes in competition, is of such a tiny sample size as to be of no use whatsoever. It’s why there’s no point in getting excited or disjointed about either Hubbard or Thomas’ performance whether they win, lose or whether they qualify at all.
0 -
Surely no one here could take issue with this ?
2 -
Go google Lia Thomas and locker room. Or similar search terms.
0 -
But, no, it's fine, it's the little women in the world who need to be protected.
0 -
They are though, but it’s not surprising that you don’t see it when there’s feckall interest in women’s participation in sports in any case.
Well this is utter nonsense. What top sports women are advocating to get rid of women's sport? You seriously expecting us to believe that Serene Williams would prefer to play with Novak Djokovic, where she couldn't possibly beat him in a 5 setter, and consequently wouldn't have had the advertising endorsements she's made millions off from winning tournaments. Face palm.
It’s only when people who are transgender wanted to participate in sports in accordance with their gender that people got tetchy about the idea - they don’t have any interest in women’s sports themselves, and they don’t want people who are transgender participating in sports. They want to eliminate any evidence of people who are transgender because it doesn’t fit with what in their view are ‘social norms’ which must be upheld.
Ascribing opinions on the topic as prejudice, on a discussion forum, is a sign that one has lost the argument.
You’re painting a misleading portrait there that people who are transgender want to be discriminated against is the reason why they wish to participate in women’s sports, when that simply isn’t the case. It’s not as though women themselves want to be discriminated against in sports either, but they are, because people are more interested in men’s sports.
No Jack. It's your argument I'm picking holes in. It is you that is being misleading, trying to patch up the hole in your argument.
And are you seriously telling us that woman are discriminated against because ppl are generally more interested in male sport? That is what you're saying there isn't it? WOW.
What you’re more or less suggesting is the idea which is similar to the arguments during the marriage equality campaign - “sure homosexuals have the same right to enter into marriage as everyone else, what’s their problem?”, “where does it stop, people be wanting to marry their horse next! I want to marry my horse, why aren’t you campaigning for me to marry my horse? Ahh see, you don’t really want equality!”
No Jack, I'm not saying anything more or less anything like that. I'm just picking holes in your argument. That's all.
What you’re arguing is no different to what people who are transgender have already done for centuries - kept it to themselves and tried to fit in with a society where they were fairly certain they would be subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment if they didn’t stay off the radar. Just look at the treatment which has been dished out to Lia Thomas and tell me that’s either fair or proportionate? It’s sending a message to anyone else who is transgender that they’d best keep it to themselves and fit in with societal expectations of their gender as it is perceived by other people, even if it comes at the cost of their mental health.
Erm, I never argued any such thing. What I've argued is the huge hole in your general opinion about women being discriminated in sport and your strange view that transgender women should be equally discriminated against. That is your view.
And anyway, you're whole keep it to yourself is a big load of sentimental puke inducing nonsense. Trans is not Gay, OK? Unfortunately you seem to think they are the same thing. They are not the same thing or even the same 'kind' of think. That is how Trans got traction, by conjoining with the gay world to give the impression it's something significant. It's not significant, it's irrelevant. That is why trans inclusive language is absurd. Trans is irrelevant, because there simply aren't the numbers. Most people will never meet a trans person in their lives, and the idea that people are prejudiced against trans is so silly, when they've never even met one in their lives, or ever will. That would be like being prejudiced against an Eskimo, when you've never even met one in your life.
If one wanted to be prejudiced for fun, they might be better off focusing their prejudice on people they encounter in their lives, rather than some theoretical notion of a trans person they will never encounter. Point is, your argument that opinions made in these threads stems out of prejudiced is total nonsense. You've make that accusation repeatedly, because you have no better argument to make.
edit:typo
Post edited by AllForIt on5 -
Advertisement
-
Nothing to see here move along...
It would be interesting to observe if there would be or would not be conflict developing if you try to create single category for transgender woman and transgender man, and let them compete together. According to our activists there would be nothing but pure happiness and acceptance between participants. Swimming, running, boxing...
1 -
That can't happen, because trans is not significant. You can have a 'Gay Games' but you can't have Trans Games.
Gender discombobulation is a very very niche thing, and always will be.
It is the Left that are promoting it as an important demographic, because they've run out of minorities to champion.
In the Left's quest to promote minorities, they are now promoting drag queens of late. So embarrassing to be a gay guy these days when the Left are 'platforming' drag queens in their desperation to have a minority to fight for. Cringe.
2 -
Well this is utter nonsense. What top sports women are advocating to get rid of women's sport?
Nobody said anything about top sports women advocating to get rid of women’s sport. You’re not picking holes in any argument I’ve made which is why I was wondering where you were going with your earlier post that I figured wasn’t worth responding to, as there was nothing to respond to. You just appeared to be throwing it out there and I figured “Ok, whatever!”
You didn’t address my question about Jenner, instead you chose to completely avoid it to make the point that Jenner wouldn’t be interested in my opinion. I didn’t ask whether Caitlyn Jenner would be interested in my opinion or not, I asked whether you thought it was reasonable to suggest that Caitlyn Jenner would be in the position they’re in now if they had chosen to compete as Caitlyn Jenner in the 1976 Olympics. They wouldn’t, and you know damn well they wouldn’t. The only comparable test case from around the same time is that of Reneee Richards, who sued the USTA for the right to play. The USTA used the same junk science as is still being used some 40 years later, and the opinion of the Courts then was almost prophetic -
Judge Alfred Ascione agreed, and in a 13-page decision he ruled that, as a woman, Richards was free to play in the U.S. Open without taking a chromosome test. He also rejected the USTA's bizarre claim that allowing transsexual players to compete would unleash an army of male athletes seeking gender reassignment in order to infiltrate women's sports. "When an individual such as plaintiff, a successful physician, a husband and father, finds it necessary for his own mental sanity to undergo a sex reassignment," Ascione wrote, "the unfounded fears and misconceptions of defendants must give way to the overwhelming medical evidence that this person is now female."
I have never, not once, ever argued that transgenderism and homosexuality are the same thing. You’ve never been given that impression from any of my posts either because I have never, not once, argued either in terms of ‘gay rights’, or ‘trans rights’, or ‘disabled rights’, or ‘womens rights’ or ‘mens rights’ for that matter. I have always, and consistently argued within the framework of Human Rights. Within that framework I have argued against discrimination. That’s what is the common thread that each distinct group within society faces - discrimination on the basis of characteristics.
Discrimination fuelled by prejudice and ignorance, claims about their behaviour which are based upon nothing, no evidence whatsoever, but perpetuating fearmongering and prejudice in an attempt to justify the reasons why people belonging to those groups should face discrimination and why it is entirely justified. That is not regarding all people as equals, it is perpetuating discrimination based upon regarding people belonging to different groups as a threat to social norms. Each of those groups face similar discrimination in terms of education, healthcare, housing, employment, etc. It’s nothing to do with being woke or any of the rest of that nonsense to recognise discrimination which has the effect of people being treated less favourably than others on the basis of characteristics, discrimination fuelled by prejudice and ignorance, not by science, but because of a lack of science, which is a tool used in the pursuit of knowledge, not a tool used to justify discrimination.
You make the point that if people want to be prejudiced for fun, they might be better off focussing their prejudices on people they encounter in their own lives, but here’s the thing - people can do that, AND at the same time they can focus their prejudices on whatever the Daily Mail serves up on a platter, AND when their appetite for being a miserable cnut is still unsatisfied, like JK the billionaire author of children’s fiction who appears to have fcukall better else to do with her time, they can scour the internet for things to be miserable about, and even use it to their own advantage if their motivation is that they should be able to exercise free speech and mock and belittle people, and encourage others to mock and belittle people, and troll the hell out of people, and if those people respond in anger, then you have a whole audience of ‘followers’ to join you in condemning those people as uncivilised and undeserving of human rights like all of us civilised folk in ‘polite society’. I dunno man, there’s always just something ‘off’ for me about the whole idea of celebrating and rewarding that kind of behaviour towards other people. It’s always struck me as the complete opposite of civilised behaviour towards other people.
1 -
Nobody said anything about top sports women advocating to get rid of women’s sport. You’re not picking holes in any argument I’ve made which is why I was wondering where you were going with your earlier post that I figured wasn’t worth responding to, as there was nothing to respond to. You just appeared to be throwing it out there and I figured “Ok, whatever!”
I have you on this one and you know it. That is why you've written an essay and asked me questions about Jenner to distract.
I'm not going to let you off the hook on this one. So I'll repeat. You think women's sport is a thing because of discrimination. If there weren't discrimination there wouldn't be any gendered sports.
So, why aren't you fighting against that discrimination such that there wouldn't be any gendered sports at all.
"Ok, whatever" is your answer to that.
Well, "Ok Whatever" yourself, if you think I'm going to bother to respond to your further points, as if I made some nonsensical point not worth responding to. Everyone else gets it, dude.
9 -
It’s only when people who are transgender wanted to participate in sports in accordance with their gender that people got tetchy about the idea - they don’t have any interest in women’s sports themselves, and they don’t want people who are transgender participating in sports. They want to eliminate any evidence of people who are transgender because it doesn’t fit with what in their view are ‘social norms’ which must be upheld.
This explanation doesn't make sense for those who have no problem with transmen competing in male sports.
Also yes, there is limited research or evidence on specifically professional trans athletes. There is, however, plenty of evidence on trans people in general and no reason to assume professional/high level athletes would be any different.
You want to argue for inclusion of transwomen in female sports then fine - there is a perfectly valid rights-based argument for it. Just don't argue they don't have physiological advantages over women and accept the downside for women of their inclusion. This attempt to make it seem like the only reason to oppose it is bigotry is pathetic.
6 -
You were making a nonsensical point not worth responding to, and you’re still doing it, and by your own standards you’ve “lost the argument”, when you’re trying to tell me what my argument is, and then asking me why don’t I fight against discrimination such that there wouldn’t be any gendered sports at all, then saying that means I must give examples of top professional women athletes who want to get rid of women’s sports!
I’ve never argued any of that, because it makes no sense. Instead what I can do is correct your purposely taking whatever I’ve said out of context, and putting it back in it’s proper context. There are women who want to play sports with men, for whatever their reasons, and they are not permitted to, by the governing bodies rules.
Because we’re generally speaking about discriminating about athletes who are transgender, harking back 200 years to a time when women were excluded from participating in sports because they were considered the pursuit of of men and boys only, explains discrimination against women in it’s historical context. People who are transgender participating in sports isn’t new. People who wish to participate in sports without discrimination on the basis of gender isn’t new either. People being discriminated against on the basis of gender, but being told it is on some other ground such as sex, is an attempt to introduce a new standard which didn’t apply before, primarily because nobody thought of it, in the same way as women were never considered when it came to sports, because sports were for men, the hell would women be doing participating in sports, you having a laugh?
It’s obviously not the same people, because they’re long dead now, obviously, but for the newer generations of young people participating in sports, they’re still coming up against the old rules which are discriminatory against them, and why politicians are scrambling to introduce new legislation to keep it that way, and why sports organisations are scrambling to introduce new rules to make sure they don’t get caught off-guard like that again. Nah, not to protect women and girls or anything like that, but to protect their own income from sports, to protect the image of sports as a men’s pursuit, and if women really want to participate, they should be more like men, as that’s the only way they’ll earn recognition and respect in sports.
That’s why you don’t hear about Mack Beggs and their campaigning in the same way as you never heard about Chris Mosier and their campaigning, in the same way as you’ll never hear about the many hundreds of children who are transgender participating in sports and who want to continue to participate in sports in accordance with their gender, not the gender anyone else says they are, but the gender they say they are themselves -
Really it’s not a surprise you’ve never heard of them.
Post edited by One eyed Jack on1 -
Advertisement
-
This is the single biggest problem with all of these debates.
It's simple enough I think.
If there is unfairness, it is because there is difference.
If there is difference, then the trans argument that there is no difference between a woman and a man identifying as a woman falls.
The difference can never be acknowledged so we end up talking about gobis that change sex. Sea horse males give birth. So what?
None of these things have anything to do with how human beings have evolved.
The vast majority of humans are hetro, about 10% (maybe more) are gay and a tiny % are trans. Even with more openness about trans, it will still be a tiny %.
BY insisting that black is in fact white, trans rights will ultimately suffer because good people will be put off by the pure stupidity of the arguments being made.
Perhaps it would be better for trans activists to understand that nobody has 100% of their rights upheld all of the time, that unfairness is just that and not a stick to beat with and that trans people have the same responsibility as everyone else to avoid doing harm to other humans.
2 -
Some people do have a problem with trans men and boys competing
The fact is there are not enough elite trans athletes competing across a wide verity of sports to provide enough data to enable any absolute conclusions to be drawn. The research is in the early stages and much of the data used is from the U.S. military using specific tests designed to test the fitness of soldiers - not athletes.
There are so many caveats and qualifications added to the research results as to render them far from conclusive. But the one thing even the most concerned scientists agree on is that there should not be a blanket ban on allowing transgender people compete as the gender they identify as. Interestingly there is a study that shows transgender men do have a slight advantage in some sports over cis men - yet, this as you say, is rarely a problem.
And tbh - as someone who was lucky enough to compete in a very physical team sport at the highest level every single person I played with and against had some advantage over the people who didn't make it. Our abilities (a combination of physical and mental) gave us an edge and we used it to our advantage. Didn't mean we always won. Didn't mean every individual player played to the highest level every time because that never happens. There are always variables. Off days.
All this talk about 'fairness' in elite level sport as if a level playing field is even possible is, to my way of thing, nothing but a nonsense platitude similar to giving everyone who competes a medal. The reality is every single person engaging at the highest level already has several advantages over the average person - advantages that give them the edge in their chosen sport. As I said earlier - a left handed tennis player has a huge advantage when serving. Should they be banned to make it 'fair'? No - because the reality is they do not always win.
My point has always been that it is not a given that a transgender player will win.
To claim they will is to imply that cis women athletes are just not that good really.
Thomas - the latest media focus - won one race in a specific swim meet. She is not the world #1. She isn't even in the world rankings. She has been beaten by cis women who also have 'advantages' that got them to where they are, and used them to their advantage. Which is what all athletes do.
Thomas didn't 'rob' anyone's spot. She swam faster then them on the day. Those she beat did not own the spot. No one owns a win until the race is finished.
Those who claim their interest is in protecting women's sports seem to only care (some honestly have stated they have zero interest in women's sports) about those sports where the media has made a fuss about a transgender woman competing - or perhaps I missed the plethora of posts about the Canadian volleyball team... and also seem to have a very narrow view of what constitutes sport.
1 -
Am I misreading this?
Your argument seems to be that transgender people should shut up and put up with not having their rights protected because no one has all their rights protected?
Do you extend that to all minority groups?
Seems to me, as a member of a minority group who had to fight for a very long time to get our rights protected and a not minority group that had to fight for a very long time to get our rights protected that this seems to be an argument coming from a position of a life where the majority of the person making the argument has their rights protected.
Easy to tell other's that life isn't fair deal with it when one is a member of the life is pretty fair rights wise group.
2 -
Some people do have a problem with trans men and boys competing
Fine, I don't.
To claim they will is to imply that cis women athletes are just not that good really.
No it isn't. It is to claim that men are bigger, faster and stronger than women, which is true and one would like to think an uncontroversial statement. And of course a transwoman will not always win - they may not be anywhere near as good. I, obviously, would not win in a race against Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce but thousands and thousands of men would, including some teenagers.
In many ways, sports is about finding out advantages and separating out unique talents. The problem is that the sex differences generally swamp any other advantage. Whatever the history of segregated female sports, that is the reality today and why they need to be kept separate. There are also (quite valid) criticisms of "forcing" athletes to take medication in order to compete - which is essentially what the hormone blockers do. I would like to think there would be no argument that completely unmedicated transwomen have a massive advantage (though I'm sure someone will try). The IOC however are even moving in that direction.
Ultimately, there is no particular reason to segregate out sports by gender, rather than sex.
9 -
Yes you are misreading it. It's what you do all the time.
8 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
