Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.
Comments
-
You don't need to explain anything...I was just pointing out that you completely contradicted yourself within a few sentences.
Your posts are really off the wall with bringing racism to this, they aren't connected in the slightest. I would hazard a guess, you are doing it to try and get some moral high ground by equating the 2. You are failing on that...surprise surprise.
4 -
you can just admit it if you aren't able to read
0 -
After you admit that you brought racism into a debate when it has no place in it.
Over to you.
0 -
There was no contradiction.
Race realism:
The division of humankind into biologically separate groups, along with the assignment of particular physical and mental characteristics to these groups through constructing and applying corresponding explanatory models, is referred to as racialism, race realism, or race science by those who support these ideas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
Sex realism:
The connection, the parallels between both ideologies, and the reason other Feminists pointed out the term may be… ahem, ‘problematic’:
0 -
Oh deary me...the poster said the following, which is a contradiction.
Can I just say I never accused anyone of being racist so it's very odd that it's being implied that I am?
I was just shocked to find a term is being used that has a clear parallel to an attempt by academic racists
Try to keep up, it isn't that hard.
The very first link you posted has no reference to Transgender people at all...so why post it?
And a gentle refresher for the thicker skulled people in here, preventing biological males competing in biological female categories of sports is not the same as racism. Trying to equate them is one of the most dim whited things anyone could do.
0 -
Advertisement
-
The first link, is the definition of what was called ‘race realism’. It is now regarded as racist pseudoscientific garbage.
The second link, is Feminists suggesting that they should abandon the term ‘gender critical’ in favour of the term ‘sex realism’.
The screenshot of the tweet is a poll by Bev Jackson, founder of LGB Alliance, in which most people polled preferred the term ‘sex realism’, to which Bev then responds underneath that she is feeling quite swayed by the people who reject the term ‘sex realism’, because it was pointed out to her by other people, the possible association it has with the obnoxious term ‘race realism’. Basically the term ‘sex realism’ is a bit of a non-starter for Bev given its potential to be associated with racist pseudoscientific garbage.
It’s basically an academic argument over how feminists who once referred to themselves as gender critical feminists, should now instead refer to themselves as sex realist feminists, because according to Susanna Rustin at least- it’s more positive but also possibly clearer, since gender has at least 3 meanings (synonym for sex, sex-role stereotypes, gender identity).
1 -
Thank you for that lovely write up.
Now, what does that have to do with transgender athletes in sports? Or the physical advantages males posses over females? Good time to ask as you have avoided these questions for a long time now.
0 -
Well it was Milky Toast who brought the term into this particular discussion (and I’m certain she was unaware of it’s potential to be associated with what is now regarded as pseudoscientific racist garbage), to which Gentlemanne responded and pointed out the ongoing academic argument over the term among academic feminists who hold gender critical beliefs, such as the belief that sex is immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity.
Their beliefs are the basis for their opposition to the idea that being transgender is a legitimate identity, rather humans should be classified by sex, and treated accordingly. That’s what it has to do with transgender athletes in sports, or the physical advantages that males possess over females.
0 -
Whatever mate, you’re talking nonsense yet again.
0 -
Realism just means the belief that something is real, ie has some physical manifestation and some significant importance because of that. Sex realism means believing that sex is real, which as I said before, used to be an uncontroversial belief. "Gender realism" could be a term to describe people who believe gender is real.
Race realism is problematic is because it gives a much greater significance to race than it deserves. It is pseudo-scientific rather than based on any verifiable science.
If anything, race realism is more comparable to gender realism than sex realism. Beyond the superficial characteristic of skin colour, there are few (if any) objective tests of race. There are no objective tests for gender, but we know sex can be determined with greater than 99.998% accuracy.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Realism just means the belief that something is real, ie has some physical manifestation and some significant importance because of that.
There’s quite a bit more to it than that though plodder - it’s the implications of that belief, have always been controversial, whether it’s beliefs about either sex or gender. The conflation of sex and gender is uncontroversial for most people. I wouldn’t care to put a percentage on it as I really have no idea how many Feminists there are in Ireland, let alone Western society, or globally.
The point is that it’s an issue for Feminists because so much of social, political, economic and cultural norms are determined by either gender or sex, which are used interchangeably in common usage, but for Feminists who have traditionally sought to liberate themselves from patriarchal oppression (as they see it), the idea that one’s role in society is determined by biology is a farcical notion repugnant to their beliefs about the nature of reality and human activity.
That obviously plays into the role of women in terms of sports, and it was largely uncontroversial for most of human history that women should not be permitted to participate in sports - they were activities solely for men. That belief is still largely uncontroversial. The participation of women in sports is often dismissed as a fanciful notion, if not outright declared indicative of a sign of madness in order to suppress the idea before it might gain any traction in society.
For Feminists who have traditionally sought to liberate themselves from patriarchal oppression, the idea of determinism based upon either gender or sex is akin to biological racism - the idea that biological characteristics determine the limitations that should be placed upon humans based upon arbitrary criteria. It’s what informed decisions about classes of humans based upon their characteristics, such as skin tone, sexual orientation and so on (good luck devising an objective test for sexual orientation btw, Freud and Kinsey’s ideas have largely been discredited as pseudoscientific nonsense).
Depending upon what you’re used to, ideas are either controversial or not, regardless of how absurd or not they may be to others. Christianity for example which has informed much of Western societies and cultures is different from say Hinduism which incorporates sex and gender bending long before David Bowie ever came along -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_LGBT_topics
That’s a continent inhabited by one fifth of the world’s population, so when sports organisations change their names to reflect their international reach, and organise competitions on that scale - while they get to make the rules, their rules do not apply universally as a reflection of diverse cultural norms in other territories. Those ideas carry with them their own set of problems. Not so much in Africa where they’ll rarely think twice about crushing an infant’s head to kill them if they’re found to deviate from clearly identifiable arbitrary characteristics which determine sex -
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39780214
And I think we’re all aware of how the effects of their cultural, economic, political and social beliefs about sex and gender worked out for the Chinese. It’s probably the most common example cited as abhorrent to Western standards, like we’ve never endeavoured to do that 😒
So for Feminists, and Feminism as a political and social philosophy which sought to liberate women from oppression, that’s why they would be reluctant to take on the oppressive characteristics of their oppressors and apply that to other groups in society who are also oppressed, and it’s why there have always been, and shall continue to exist, a minority of Feminists who, on the basis of their beliefs about sex and gender, seek to distinguish themselves from mainstream Feminism. They’re just not sure what to call themselves, which is where the whole academic debate about what to call themselves comes from, and where it quickly runs into problems based upon the effects on society of the ideas that preceded it, such as biological determinism which informed so much of Western philosophy and scientific inquiry. From within the Feminist perspective, that’s why Bev was likely to have an issue with it - as a lesbian who claims that lesbians are facing extinction, the implications of the idea of ‘sex realism’, which wouldn’t occur to most people, become almost immediately very, very real:
Given the popularity of the term among Feminists who are opposed to the idea of Transgender equality, it’s looking as though Bev might soon, much like Posie Parker, have to find a new home for herself. Posie adopted the term ‘Femalist’ for herself, as she has maintained for a long time that she no longer identifies as a feminist. The term hasn’t caught on, little wonder given it’s potential association with the original meaning of the term:
Noun
femalist (plural femalists)
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/femalist
The fact that it doesn’t appear in many English dictionaries might explain why Posie may be unfamiliar with the term.
Good history and explanation of the philosophical underpinnings of much of this modern ideology here, which upon reading should give anyone a better understanding of how this stuff has bled from society into sports, and back from sports into society again, never gaining much of a foothold in any domain:
Post edited by One eyed Jack on0 -
So, you're saying it’s not the belief itself, but the implications associated with it. That’s good enough for me, with respect to the point I was making, namely that there’s no justification for linking people who believe sex is real, with racists. It’s such an outrageous and ridiculous slur, but that’s the level of the discourse unfortunately.
I’d love to get into a longer discussion with you, if I had the time, on the “implications” because what I think you’re getting at goes right to the heart of the controversy. It seems to me that some people (who probably aren’t involved in sport), for them to acknowledge that men have an innate biological advantage in sport, has “implications” that are clearly too much to contemplate and they would prefer to throw their daughters and sisters who do play sport, under the bus instead.
Anyone, who is scoffing at the last sentence might like to read the article below, which was quoted here before. It only took one male bodied trans player in an English women’s football league to literally cause chaos - one career ending knee injury, multiple teams refusing to play against the team fielding the male player, a fairly heart wrenching appeal to the FA to do something about it, which so far has fallen on deaf ears.
https://sports.yahoo.com/football-teams-refuse-play-transgender-162221601.html
Lots of other interesting stuff in your post as well though, like “gender bending” in Hinduism, which I know next to nothing about, but which I suspect has done next to nothing for the position of women in Indian society, and if I were to hazard a guess, exists primarily for the benefit of men …
1 -
The vast majority of this post is completely irrelevant to this thread, so I'll treat it with the seriousness it deserves and ignore it.
That obviously plays into the role of women in terms of sports, and it was largely uncontroversial for most of human history that women should not be permitted to participate in sports - they were activities solely for men. That belief is still largely uncontroversial. The participation of women in sports is often dismissed as a fanciful notion, if not outright declared indicative of a sign of madness in order to suppress the idea before it might gain any traction in society.However the above nonsense needs to be called out for the nonsense that it is.
In most of human history only a tiny tiny minority of the population, male or female, had any interest in sports, as they were too busy surviving day to day. Whether someone was permitted to play sports or not was entirely irrelevant. Sports participation beyond an elite minority is a relatively modern phenomenon. All of which is completely irrelevant anyway, since the history does not matter to the subject of this thread. The rest of us are dealing with the reality of here and now. And that's where your above paragraph elevates itself into the realms of paranoid nonsense.
To say that the belief that women shouldn't be allowed to participate in sports is currently uncontroversial is complete BS. Utter nonsense. You're completely disconnected from the real world if you think that is true. Do you really think anyone is going to read that and go "yeah, he's right. The belief that women should not be allowed to participate in sport is completely uncontroversial". You're deluded if you really think that.
In an Irish context the reverse is the case. There are multiple government-funded initiatives to encourage more female participation in sports. A very large number of sporting organisations are working hard to try to increase female participation in their sports. Your assertions are utter nonsense in this context.
10 -
To say that the belief that women shouldn't be allowed to participate in sports is currently uncontroversial is complete BS.
That stuck out a mile to me as well. It's complete tripe.
2 -
This is largely (though not entirely) off-topic so I'm gonna put it behind spoiler tags.
>>>Can I just say I never accused anyone of being racist so it's very odd that it's being implied that I am?
If you say that was not your intent then I believe you, but it might be worth considering why all but one constitutionally contrarian poster seems to have read it that way. You know, to avoid future misunderstandings.
>>>Just to explain again and I'll attempt to be clearer this time: I was just shocked to find a term is being used that has a clear parallel to an attempt by academic racists (who have nothing to do with GCs) who were doing PR for their prejudiced views (for the "sex realists" this is prejudice against transgender and gender nonconforming people).
This just seems like a symptom of being too online. Alas, so many people—particularly those most involved in political and cultural debates—are too online (no shade—I am a recovering too-online-person myself), so maybe there's some merit to the opinion that so many people have lost the ability to accurately interpret a word once it has been in close proximity (in a completely different context) to another (bad) word as to make the phrase "sex-realist" untenable. I don't personally think it matters much. Those who have faith in gender identity and are acolytes of gender identity ideology, down to demanding to control the speech and even thoughts of others, are going to find something to nitpick about however their perceived opposition refer to themselves. They must, because they have little in the way of coherent response to the arguments put to them.
In any case, I'm prepared to stick with "gender critical" if that's more preferable to more people - and on reflection that might be better since that is what has been established in law as protected belief in the UK.
>>>Bev Jackson even agrees with me that the connotation smells a bit, and she's a founder of LGB Alliance, which itself is just a transparent facade for anti-trans stuff, so she understands publicity.
I see this bandied about a lot, the idea that LGBA doesn't serve LGB people. But I would make a couple of contra-points.
1. LGBA was, for much of its existence thus far, busy defending itself from a malicious and vexatious attempt by Mermaids to have it stripped of its charity status (Mermaids is a controversial UK charity that advocates for the medical and surgical transition of children, currently under investigation itself by the UK charity commission for "serious systemic failings" after being found to be supplying harmful breast binders to teenage girls without their parents' knowledge or consent). They fought off the attempt with relative ease and I'm sure they are glad to now have the additional time and resources to put to their original mission.
2. Until recently (with the addition of the Gay Men's Network and The Lesbian Project), LGBA was the ONLY LGB charity in the UK that did not adhere to gender identity ideology and did not centre trans people in their advocacy and activism. As such, LGBA's mission is bound to focus quite heavily on the issues in culture and rights when gender identity ideology negatively affects LGB people who understand themselves as being same-sex attracted, rather than same-gender attracted. There is no shortage of LGB people who have been negatively impacted by gender identity ideology - not least lesbians who were referred to by Nancy Kelly, the former CEO of Stonewall, as being akin to "sexual racists" if they refused to date and have sexual relations with males calling themselves lesbians (Stonewall is a previously brilliant LGB charity in the UK that has turned its attention to almost exclusively to TQ+ issues in recent years, and is currently lobbying (along with the aforementioned Mermaids charity and a clown car of useless culture-warrior lawyers called The Good Law Project) to have the UK's Equalities and Human Rights Commission downgraded by the UN from a long-standing A grade because the EHRC confirmed that biological sex is an important and distinct category for equality and rights purposes. (After, of course, the goons attacked Baroness Falkner (the head of EHRC) as a Nazi, fascist, bigot, etc. etc. and then left bottles of urine outside the EHRC building, and 12 trans rights activists within the EHRC made dozens of vexatious (since dismissed) complaints against her.)
A review of LGBA's latest tweets shows
1. A celebration of a win by a lesbian professor who was bullied and harassed out of her job at the Open University by her academic peers and managerial superiors because of her belief that sex is real and important, to the point that it constituted constructive dismissal.
2. The announcement of the publication of an online library of useful information for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, including topics like coming out, adoption, global laws regarding homosexuality, blood donation, etc.
3. A link to a report by The Lesbian Project, pointing out that the UK census data in relation to sexuality is inadequate for properly assessing the needs of LGB people.
4. A post harking back to Scotland's proposed gender reforms, which went down in flames after Sturgeon responded to the placement of a violent make rapist in a women's prison by saying that the three genders were man, woman and rapist. LGBA initially objected to this bill on the basis of LGB and women's rights.
5. A post informing people about the existence of LGBA friend groups around the country that they can join.
While I understand that some people think that "LGBTQ" or even "LGBTQIA2++" people are a monolith and all think alike (and are obliged to), the truth is that LGB people are as varied as individuals as anyone else, and have specific issues related to their being same-sex attracted that require attention. It's okay to disagree with them, but it's not really defensible to proscribe the only charity speaking exclusively for them as a hate group just because they don't include a group you quite like (which already represented by a multitude of LBGTQ+, TQ+, and T charities and organisations).
>>>Funny enough though while looking into this I found an organization that's ostensibly on the same side as huge GC figure Posie Parker, denouncing her for being racist 😂: https://womansplaceuk.org/2022/06/22/womans-place-and-posie-parker/
Imo this is more about Parker herself being an activist by any means necessary and I don't believe there's any institutional racism problem among this cohort. I cannot say the same for how they view transgender people.
People who disagree with gender identity ideology are not a monolith (much like LGB and even T people). You have the evangelical Christians (mostly American) who think the 1950s should be the end of history and everyone should be forced to play their gender role (women in the kitchen and all that); you have the radical feminists (who believe that all females who transition are escaping patriarchy and all males who transition are fetishistic predators, and leave no room for either female darkness or for the care of sensitive boys and young men who don't want to become the 'toxic' men they've been assured they will become); you have the detransitioners, who tend to be traumatised and pretty angry, and describe their experience as leaving a cult; you have the people with disorders of sexual development who just want people to stop appropriating the disease they suffer with to make gender identity points; you have the people who largely don't care what adults do as long as children are left alone to develop and grow without irreversible intervention and women's right to dignity, privacy and fairness in sport is preserved... to name just a few.
It's a very large number of people with very disparate views. Any group of people discussing any issue is the same. I've seen trans people who are disgusted by the current state of things and trans people who think every child should be given damaging puberty blockers at the onset of Tanner stage II so they're not 'forced' to go through puberty.
I'm not sure why anyone would expect anything else. Sex being real is a matter of provable fact, and sex being important (in some situations) is played out in people's daily lives on a regular basis. Of course it's going to be a very large umbrella, and of course it's going to be full of people as varied in other views as the general population.
Although I will say that irreversible treatments for children and males in women's sport are the two that seem to be the most universally opposed - even by people who otherwise couldn't care less about political and cultural issues.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis
4 -
So, you're saying it’s not the belief itself, but the implications associated with it. That’s good enough for me, with respect to the point I was making, namely that there’s no justification for linking people who believe sex is real, with racists. It’s such an outrageous and ridiculous slur, but that’s the level of the discourse unfortunately.
It’s entirely justified. In just the same way as the people making claims about other people based on race were insulted by the accusation that they were racist, so too are people who make claims about other people based on sex, insulted by the accusation that they are transphobic! It’s no different than Church leaders playing the victim when they are accused of being homophobic for expressing homophobic rhetoric based on their beliefs about other people in order to justify unjustifiable discrimination. They can’t justify it on any other grounds, so they engage in fearmongering, just like the way you posted that article where it was written that there was an alleged connection to a players season-ending knee injury -
At least four teams in a Sheffield women’s football league are boycotting matches after a club fielded a transgender player accused of causing a season-ending injury to an opponent.
Mexborough Athletic refused to play Rossington Ladies on Sunday night in protest at the presence of Francesca Needham, 31, amid outrage throughout the league at the openly trans player’s alleged connection to an incident that has left a rival out of action for several months.
I know you’ve played sports so you must be aware of the risks of injury in any sport, and you must be aware of how common injuries are, so to single out a single player for a single alleged incident, is no different than me doing this to make the point that even at the most developmental levels of any sport, devastating life changing injuries are a risk -
“Sport has always given me great pleasure in life, and I don’t blame the game of rugby for what happened that day. Ultimately, I feel I was let down by improper and poor behaviour from the opposing player, coaching staff and the referee.”
Even if they never played sport, people are aware of the fact that there are numerous people who are responsible for the safety of the players. This idea you have that only people who ever played sport have a valid opinion is complete nonsense. It immediately puts anyone who is not permitted to play, at a significant disadvantage for starters, and puts you at a significant advantage. There’s no validity to the argument whatsoever. It’s nothing more than an argument from authority combined with the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy - if a person doesn’t share your view, they must never have played sports.
As regards my claim that throughout human history, women weren’t permitted to participate in sports, I can easily provide evidence that it is not tripe. The most common example in recent history is of course football, women were banned from playing football in several countries, on the basis of what then portrayed as their participation being a threat to the natural biological order of the sexes, and other similarly unjustifiable nonsense:
A 2020 paper by Lisa Jenkel of the University of Groningen that press coverage of bans of women's football in the 1920s portrayed the sport as a threat to the "natural, biological order of the sexes" and on the "compatibility of women’s football and contemporary gender norms." Jenkel further found that in contemporary social media discourse around women's football, "sexualisation of players and spectators, dismissing women’s matches as ‘unwatchable’ or disputing the game being a sport, are seemingly still part of some mindsets."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_of_women%27s_association_football
Lots of other interesting stuff in your post as well though, like “gender bending” in Hinduism, which I know next to nothing about, but which I suspect has done next to nothing for the position of women in Indian society, and if I were to hazard a guess, exists primarily for the benefit of men …
God no man 😂 Ahh no, it’s just that yeah, that’d be a reasonable assumption on the face of it, but in a nation inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population, it’s a fairly diverse society. Depending upon who you ask it’s either deeply conservative, or incredibly liberal. For example recent judgements of the Supreme Court include recognition of marriage between people who are transgender (the caveats should be obvious) -
Same-sex marriage is still not recognised in law:
Abortion has been legal since the 70’s, but It’s illegal to attempt to determine the sex of the foetus before birth:
In 1994, the Parliament of India enacted the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act also called the Prohibition of Sex Selection Act. As per the Act, it's illegal to use any technique to spot the sex of a foetus after conception. This came into action to stop the abortion of female fetuses, which continues to be a typical practice in India.
https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/Pre-Natal-Sex-determination-laws-in-India
And I have no doubt that you are aware of what that means in the context of the importance of sports competitions on the world stage, as opposed to tilting at windmills by claiming sex is real when the argument was never that it isn’t- the argument has always been that people should not be unjustifiably discriminated against on grounds that are immutable characteristics such as sex and gender - people who are transgender, their sex does not correspond to their gender. Arguing that gender does not exist in order to justify discrimination specifically against people who are transgender, in order to limit their participation in sports, is just an extension of the argument to justify discrimination against people who are transgender in other domains such as employment, education, housing and so on. Sports organisations and their policies aren’t in any way unique that they shouldn’t be held to the same standards in law as any other organisation.
1 -
Please stop lying and running away from your own claims. If you can't stand over them just say that you were incorrect.
You claimed :
That obviously plays into the role of women in terms of sports, and it was largely uncontroversial for most of human history that women should not be permitted to participate in sports - they were activities solely for men. That belief is still largely uncontroversial. The participation of women in sports is often dismissed as a fanciful notion, if not outright declared indicative of a sign of madness in order to suppress the idea before it might gain any traction in society.You are claiming that it is currently uncontroversial to say that women should be excluded from sports. History is irrelevant to that claim. You are claiming that this is currently the case. That is pure and utter horseshit. You're paranoid and deluded if you think that. It would actually show some intelligence if you simply said that you got that wrong.
This idea you have that only people who ever played sport have a valid opinion is complete nonsense.Are you constructing a strawman there? Who has said that on this thread? The only person I've seen make any kind of assertion like that are the TRAs who tried to shut down people contributing to the thread on the grounds that they only had a newfound interest in women's sport, since the participation of transwomen in the female category became a controversial issue (The irony being that they fitted that description themselves perfectly). (And for the record, I know you have never said that anyone shouldn't participate in this discussion, and am happy to fully acknowledge that)
the argument has always been that people should not be unjustifiably discriminated against on grounds that are immutable characteristics such as sex and gendererrrm. You're saying there that gender is an immutable characteristic. Do you understand what you're saying at all? If that were the case then by definition transgender people couldn't exist. "trans" and "immutable" are incompatable opposites. I think you've got that very very wrong.
I entirely agree that sex is currently an immutable characteristic if sex is defined by chromosomes or genetics. Science/medicine has yet to create any way to alter those in a living human.
Arguing that gender does not exist in order to justify discrimination specifically against people who are transgender, in order to limit their participation in sportsCan you ever stop repeating this outright lie? Nobody is trying to limit transgender people from participating in sports. The argument is that they (like every other gender) should participate in sex-based sports categories according to their sex (it's such a tautology that it's unbelievable it needs to be said), irrespective of their gender identity (and that applies to all participants, irrespective of their gender identity (or sexual orientation, or race, or star sign etc)).
Sports organisations and their policies aren’t in any way unique that they shouldn’t be held to the same standards in law as any other organisation.Please provide any examples of sports organisations which have been found to have rules that are illegal and break anti-discrimination laws by discriminating against transgender athletes. Because if no such examples exist then their laws are perfectly legal.
3 -
It’s entirely justified. In just the same way as the people making claims about other people based on race were insulted by the accusation that they were racist, so too are people who make claims about other people based on sex, insulted by the accusation that they are transphobic!
It's justified that people are insulted yes. But, the insult itself is not justified. You accept yourself that sex is real in your post?
As regards the alleged knee break, yes, I agree you can't be certain that it couldn't have happened when playing against women. There is always a risk. But, if you read that article, it really jumps out that the people concerned are really struggling with their concern about safety, while not appearing to be transphobic.
From the article:
“There are a lot of 16-year-old girls in our league who are getting into football for the first time,” said a source familiar with the situation. “It’s a huge concern, and virtually every team in the league has taken the stance to stick together and not to play against Rossington for safety reasons. Francesca is arguing discrimination, but that’s not the case. It’s purely about safety. I’ve already told my players, ‘We’re not playing them. I’d sooner throw away the points.’”
We've discussed before about women's international football squads and how they play training games with U15 boys squads. It's not a matter of different levels of skill, as to why they don't play against older male teams. It's about safety relating to sex differences in strength.
2 -
It's justified that people are insulted yes. But, the insult itself is not justified. You accept yourself that sex is real in your post?
The insult is entirely justified on the basis that it isn’t apropos of nothing, it follows from the kind of bigoted rhetoric that attempts to perpetuate fear of that group. It works too as your example amply demonstrates. Their fears are based upon prejudice, nothing more.
I’ve never questioned that sex is a thing, or real, or a characteristic, it’s given no more or less weight in law than any of the other characteristics recognised in law.
I know it’s not a matter of different levels of skill as to why they don’t play against older male teams, it’s a question of being a training exercise, and it’s a good training exercise for the youth teams too. In terms of strength I’ve already demonstrated the different levels of strength between individuals, as opposed to presuming whole groups in society are of even similar strength, because that would be an assumption based upon prejudice.
That’s why the F.A. policy is based on determination of eligibility on a case-by-case basis -
The Needham case has potentially far-reaching implications, with at least 50 transgender players understood to be registered in women’s leagues across England. The Football Association’s policy is to decide gender eligibility for players over 16 on a case-by-case basis, with biological males wanting to play in women’s football required to show their blood testosterone levels are “within the natal female range” for an “appropriate length of time so as to minimise any potential advantage.” These levels are meant to be checked annually.
1 -
Neither paranoid nor deluded, I have no reason to be, seeing as I’m not the target of their derision:
https://www.insure4sport.co.uk/blog/uk-attitudes-towards-women-in-sport/
I’m not constructing a strawman, it was plodders inference that people whose opinions didn’t agree with his have probably never played any sport. He went further to suggest that they wanted to throw their sisters and daughters under the bus, but that wasn’t even worth entertaining, so I didn’t.
I think you may have misunderstood when I gave examples of immutable characteristics such as sex and gender. ‘Trans’ is not a gender, it is a prefix. It can be followed by the words ‘gender’ or ‘sexual’, depending upon a person’s preference.
Can you ever stop repeating this outright lie?
While I appreciate that you asked nicely and all, the answers still no, because it’s not a lie, no matter how you attempt to surreptitiously misrepresent the issue, similar to the way in which opponents of marriage equality attempted to make the argument that people who are homosexual could already enter into marriage, so it wasn’t necessary to extend to them the right to enter into marriage, thereby never having to address the issue.
I’ve never said that what sports organisations are doing is illegal? The point in saying that there isn’t anything unique about sports organisations and their policies that they shouldn’t be held to the same standards in law as any other organisation, is that failure to do so would result in a situation where they could actually make up their own rules. That would suit those people for example who are campaigning for the F.A. to change their policies regarding the eligibility of people who are transgender to play in competitions organised and under the purview of the F.A., as the RFU did in 2022:
By a vote of 33 to 26, with two members abstaining, the council of the Rugby Football Union (RFU), England’s governing body for the sport, agreed to update its gender participation policy, limiting competition in its women’s category to athletes assigned female at birth. The ruling was, in practice, a ban on trans women.
https://globalsportmatters.com/culture/2022/09/30/english-rugby-rfu-shut-gates-trans-women-athletes/
The new rules do nothing to address the issue of player’s safety to prevent the sort of behaviour that caused this woman’s injuries:
1 -
Advertisement
-
Here's another quote from that article I mentioned.
“We had a Zoom call together and you could feel the emotion pouring out,” a source said. “We’ve been terrified of saying anything. We don’t want to be accused of being transphobic. We don’t want the names of our clubs dragged through the mud. It has been like walking on eggshells.
“I’ve heard of women thinking of deregistering as players because of this. There are psychological scars. It’s not fair. We’re volunteer coaches – we don’t need this. We’re responsible for the welfare of our players. And I don’t think it’s being taken seriously enough.
Anyone who reads that and thinks there isn't a problem, or that it's acceptable collateral damage is throwing their daughters and sisters under the bus. Sure, a lot of people might be taking a "wait and see" attitude, but it's only postponing the inevitable and it's not fair on the transgender people themselves either. The player on that team wasn't breaking any rule.
It is pointless arguing with you though. One minute you're agreeing that sex is real, and the next minute you're conflating that belief with racism, or you're saying it's not a "category". You also clearly stated that it's still a largely uncontroversial belief that women should not be permitted in sport. That is completely unhinged. I'd say it would be hard to find a single person who believes that. Anyway, have a nice weekend!
1 -
Just want to refer to this for others (as there will no doubt be multiple side tangents and waffle posted trying to wriggle out of it) as by accepting the lawfulness of discrimination by sex category, you have now abandoned the human rights aspect as the current human rights charter currently stands.
This has set you up, if you want to further your argument, to argue for a new human rights charter.
Given that all your previous positions have fallen flat (accepting that you do keep on going back to them with new posters hoping that older posters forget).
0 -
The new rules do nothing to address the issue of player’s safety to prevent the sort of behaviour that caused this woman’s injuries:
The rules around tackling players in the air also does nothing to prevent injuries in the scrum - should we therefore just get rid of them? This is just egregious whataboutism.
0 -
And because they feel it wasn’t being taken seriously enough, they decided to publicise the issue on social media where it’s not clear from the article who contacted who, but a transphobic group got involved and used the case to advance their own agenda, publicising the issue even more, where it got to the Inbox of Martina Navratilova. And all that crowd are concerned about are their reputations, not the fact that they showed no regard whatsoever for the person who as you rightly point out - has done no wrong. They definitely didn’t take a wait and see attitude, they immediately went on the offensive.
It was never one minute sex is real, as though I have ever argued that it wasn’t, and you’re choosing to misrepresent the facts there by associating the belief that sex is real with the behaviour that follows from some people on the basis of their beliefs about people who are transgender, attempting to portray them as a threat that should be deprived of equal protection from discrimination in law.
It’s not difficult at all to find a single person who believes that, but I did say it was largely uncontroversial, referring to the fact that the phenomenon can be observed in most countries across the globe. It was yourself and Enduro who decided that it was nonsense based entirely on your own personal experiences, or indeed lack thereof. Ross Tucker could’ve pointed out the flaw in your methodology - it’s based on anecdotal evidence, but he’s unlikely to do so if your anecdotal evidence supports his already held beliefs. He does that, and he’s taken seriously by people who already share his beliefs. That’s not basing a policy on scientific evidence, it’s basing a policy on his reputation.
It’s no different to the way John Money was held in high esteem and his opinions considered beyond question, because of his reputation. He too was easily insulted by anyone who dared question the validity of his claims, and he knew at the time why too, because he knew he was being deceptive, and sought to reverse the accusation by leveraging his reputation against theirs - who was anyone to question him sort of thing -
Money argued that media response to Diamond's exposé was due to right-wing media bias and "the antifeminist movement." He said his detractors believed "masculinity and femininity are built into the genes so women should get back to the mattress and the kitchen". However, intersex activists also criticized Money, stating that the unreported failure had led to the surgical reassignment of thousands of infants as a matter of policy. Privately, Money was mortified by the case, colleagues said, and as a rule did not discuss it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
Gaslighting fcuk! 😒
Anyway, you too plodder, have a lovely weekend 👍
0 -
A man claiming to be “gender fluid” has won the women’s category of a mountain race in Spain, signing up after there were no more spaces left in the men’s category. Quim Durán Pradas, who lives his day-to-day life as a man, says running makes him feel “feminine.”
Yesterday, Durán Pradas appeared on Más Espejo, a popular Spanish morning show, where he explained that he is a “gender fluid” athlete who feels “feminine” when he is running in natural environments, but “masculine” at all other times. He is not on any hormone therapy, and does not intend to seek out any surgeries.
“I am gender fluid, and when I run in the mountains, I feel like a woman, I feel like the other female runners,” he said. “I have been to an inclusive psychologist who told me that this is not a disorder. I am simply a person who, depending on the situations, is gender fluid. In my day-to-day life, at home when I’m with my children, I feel like a man. In my leisure time, in contact with nature, I feel like a woman.”
1 -
-
Nope!
It's all very serious and if you don't take it that way you're a bigot who's basically no better than a racist.
So goes the gospel.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis
16 -
I think the "gender fluid" thing makes this whole issue even more complicated.
1 -
So this is a man who identified as a woman on the day of the race, and being (gender fluid) I presume he could have entered a men's race the next day, identifying as a man. Obviously a crazy situation, with women bring treatment with total disrespect & distain. The Spanish running body which oversees these events should be brought into line with the ever-growing list of sports bodies who are closing the transgender loopholes which allow this madness. Swimming, Rugby-football & world/olympic athletics are leading the way on insisting that males participate in the mens category, and that females participate in the women's events (without men who identify as women) . . . .
I'm pro trans people in sport, (but only within their biological sex), also pro women's sport, as long as they only have to compete against other women, - that's traditional xx women, & not men who identify as women.
Hope this helps 👍
1 -
Advertisement
-
"Complicated", or shows it up as the nonsense it is? In the eyes of some people, how someone feels is the defining factor of which category they should compete in. This person exemplifies that mindset exactly, and how damaging it can be for women's sports. Fine according to many posters on here (who I'd bet are mostly men, and not athletic in the slightest)
6
