• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trans Women are not Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Your statement that the question was about discriminating against 0.3% or 50%.
Click to expand...

Ok I thought by asking you which statement exactly you'd actually link to it so as to be able to see the exact wording, but whatever.

Presumably, when someone says "men are taller than women" you understand that they don't literally mean that all men are taller than all women. So when we're talking about a subset of the population that competes in sports events, talking about discriminating against women as targetting 50% of that population is not refering to the part of the female general population that doesn't participate in competitive sports events, or to the general population. I'd think it was obvious that I was refering to the 50% of athletes who are women, assuming an equal ratio to the general population, and the 0.3% of athletes who are trans, making the same assumption.

But no. I have to spell it out. I don't know why. You don't strike me as an idiot, so I can only surmise that it's deliberate.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
If a race of 9 feet tall basketball playing superhumans were teleported into the world tomorrow it would objectively make ZERO impact on my likelihood of playing in the NBA.
Click to expand...

And because you're not personally affected you'd happily throw everybody else under the bus in order to be "inclusive" to superhumans, regular humans be damned.
 
HansMustermann said:
I think the problem isn't even with being over-qualified. The genuine requirements for something can also be that you're "less" in some aspect.

E.g., some muscular 200 pound guy may be better qualified as a boxer, but we explicitly don't want him punching an 100 pounds minimumweight guy. The 100 pounds guy probably doesn't even have the skeleton density to resist a full force punch from the 200 pound guy.

E.g., being able to use your eyes definitely gives you an advantage in soccer, but disqualifies you from blind soccer. (It's a real sport, btw.)

But probably the best illustration in sport is simply the fact that we disallow doping. Taking steroids certainly makes one better at the "job" in most sports, but we disqualify people for it.

And more importantly for the topic: no amount of moaning about how one identifies as something else means the rest of us should waiver those requirements. I can identify as a blind guy all I want, they're not going to let me into a blind soccer team.
Click to expand...

Blind soccer probably a bad example. Lots of the players aren't blind. Plus very easy for a sighted person to be blindfolded to participate.
 
Belz... said:
And because you're not personally affected you'd happily throw everybody else under the bus in order to be "inclusive" to superhumans, regular humans be damned.
Click to expand...

No, because I am not personally affected you cannot count me as a victim of discrimination.

The people affected are those lucky enough to be born 7' tall who didn't seem to give much of a **** about 'biological advantage' when it worked in their favour so I don't have too much sympathy for them.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The people affected are those lucky enough to be born 7' tall who didn't seem to give much of a **** about 'biological advantage' when it worked in their favour so I don't have too much sympathy for them.
Click to expand...

The fact that you are completely incapable of realizing that your "Screw them it's not anybody's fault they don't have a biological advantage" is the exact perfect counter-argument for what you are arguing for is frankly impressive.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I figured you'd have some excuse ready for why that "doesn't count."
Click to expand...

It doesn't count because it's not the bloody thing we are talking about.

He isn't trans for a start.

Seriously, if you can't tell the difference between a serious conversation and a **** taking the piss you don't deserve a seat at the big boy table.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
No, because I am not personally affected you cannot count me as a victim of discrimination.
Click to expand...

Which is fine, since we're talking about those people who ARE.

The people affected are those lucky enough to be born 7' tall who didn't seem to give much of a **** about 'biological advantage' when it worked in their favour so I don't have too much sympathy for them.
Click to expand...

Then once again your only solution is to have a single category, with everybody competing, ensuring not only that far fewer people can compete than already do, but that women would be essentially excluded from every sports competition in the world, cis- or trans-.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The fact that you are completely incapable of realizing that your "Screw them it's not anybody's fault they don't have a biological advantage" is the exact perfect counter-argument for what you are arguing for is frankly impressive.
Click to expand...

In your fantasy world it probably is.
 
Belz... said:
Which is fine, since we're talking about those people who ARE.
Click to expand...

Well then get the numbers straight.


Then once again your only solution is to have a single category, with everybody competing, ensuring not only that far fewer people can compete than already do, but that women would be essentially excluded from every sports competition in the world, cis- or trans-.
Click to expand...

Your lack of imagination is not my problem.
 
Belz... said:
How would you know that he's not "gender-fluid"?

That's very bigoted of oyu.
Click to expand...

Because he isn't. Because if he actually was he might have an iota of empathy for trans people but he doesn't because, like yourself, he doesn't give a **** about them.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Because he isn't. Because if he actually was he might have an iota of empathy for trans people but he doesn't because, like yourself, he doesn't give a **** about them.
Click to expand...

Please stop just yelling TRANSPHOBE! everytime you're argued into a corner.

Answer the question. If gender identity is self determined, how the hell would vetting the "Real" trans people from the "Fake" trans people even work? How the hell can a statement of entirely internal identity be wrong?
 
angrysoba said:
So he says. But if he said he was trans and wanted to identify as female, whether he had his fingers crossed or not, how would you determine the difference?
Click to expand...

Because being trans is more than just crossing your fingers and saying 3 times I am a man/woman.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Well then get the numbers straight.
Click to expand...

Oh, stop playing games. It stopped being clever a good while ago.

You know EXACTLY what I meant, and you knew at the time as well. You're using rhetorical games in order to ignore the flaws in your argument.

Your lack of imagination is not my problem.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, that I can imagine the logical consequences of your argument is definitely your problem.

If biological advantage isn't a problem, then categories shouldn't exist. Let the best person win. It's going to be a man all the time, but you don't care about that because you don't participate.

If you're instead going to say that you do want categories, just not ones that separate trans women from biological females, then justify it, because you've got the exact same issue there as with a single category. We're not talking about individual skill or ability, or about how many women out of the total population have what it takes to compete about the best of the category, but rather that you've got a group which, by the very fact that they are biological males, will outperform actual females consistently, and drive them out of competition altogether.

Stop playing games and address the arguments like an adult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom