• 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.
Ah, right, the fine art of unilaterally proclaiming victory and stomping out. If there ever was a sign of a dummy who doesn't actually have an argument, that would be it.

So which one was yours then? I must admit that after 19 pages, it's hard to have it all in memory.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Well, I think I mentioned earlier that what is being lost is the pretence that these women ever had a chance in the first place. And seems to assume that women only play sports because they think they could be Serena Williams... I am not sure that's the case. But in any case again this seems to simply assume that transwomen are going to completely dominate sports and there will be no outlet for other women and I think I have repeatedly said that i acknowledge that maintaining the competitive element is important.


I can only go on the arguments being made... and the thread title and repeated attempts to scream the same thing isn't convincing to me. And I do think that anyone who has concluded that trans-women shouldn't ever compete against cis-women hasn't given it due thought because I have given an example where it seems to work fine.

And that's not to say all transwomen should compete against all cis women all of the time.
Click to expand...


Um no you haven't

You have done the complete opposite by saying females should compete with males
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Because it ignores exactly what I said in the following sentence. Did you get tired and stop reading?
Click to expand...

Err, no. Your next sentence said "And that's not to say all transwomen should compete against all cis women all of the time." Having ONE example of ONE woman who competed in ONE sport, still isn't quite up to that standard. If all you have is ONE outlier that arguably qualified, you're not at the point where you can handwave that it's a fair competition, just "not all the time". You're nowhere near the standard where tacking on a "just not all the time" at the end makes it all all right.

Sorry, your not making any logical sense is still your problem, not mine.
 
Last edited:
Wayward son said:
In this case the 14-year-old transgender child consented (the court agreed with the medical experts that this 14-year-old was capable of consenting - capacity to consent is not based upon age - for this treatment, so no further family consent was required, yet the medical experts felt it would be best for the family if both parents were also in agreement), his mother consented and medical experts all agreed that the treatment was in the best interests of the child's wellbeing.

The father refused to consent.

So how much sway should he have?

I would say zero. The courts correctly agreed. The father, who the court's written decision, listed as disingenuous, and as trying to delay court proceedings to delay a decision and thereby delay treatment, has probably permanently destroyed his relationship with his child in favour of pushing his worldview and ideology.
Click to expand...

Have you actually read the ruling? Because you're either clueless of its contents or misrepresenting its significance. The ruling explicitly states that the child does not need the consent of either parent. The court would have ruled the same way even if the mother were also opposed. Furthermore, apparently even telling the child that this might be the wrong decision will be treated by the court as violence against the child.

As for worldview and ideology, funny how you think that can only cut one way.

And your own comment that age isn't relevant for consent is troubling, to say the least.
 
Sports already bends our commitment to equality (in the sense of treating everyone the same regardless of sex) and equality in the sense of discriminating based on physical attributes so there is nothing either lawful or culturally that stops sporting bodies using what are normally "protected" classes for purposes of discrimination in sports.

Therefore it is really just a matter for the sporting bodies to determine if they want their "womens" sports to be open to trans women.

The idea of using testosterone levels to determine which class people are allowed to compete in seems to be based on bad science.

I would have thought using the sex chromosomes would be the sensible way to determine where someone can compete?

Obviously this will disappoint some people who cant compete in the particular class they want to but it would mean no one has to be excluded from competitive sports at all levels.
 
HansMustermann said:
I think the general consensus about just about everything is that you're allowed make fun of it if you're one. I wore a bra and for that matter a dress before. More than once. So what are YOUR qualifications to tell me what I can or can't say about it, silly?
Click to expand...

There's a category of people who think they are more qualified than you to know whether you should be offended by something. In fact, they'll even get offended in your name.
 
theprestige said:
I think that's probably the most rational and humane solution. But it does have one gaping loophole to close: Transwomen who have not yet started any hormone manipulation.
Click to expand...

Then change the definition of trans women for sport ( to head of the screams of 'transphobe' ) to require the woman to be taking hormones.

Seems to nicely tie the issue up.
 
Wayward son said:
In this case the 14-year-old transgender child consented (the court agreed with the medical experts that this 14-year-old was capable of consenting - capacity to consent is not based upon age - for this treatment, so no further family consent was required, yet the medical experts felt it would be best for the family if both parents were also in agreement), his mother consented and medical experts all agreed that the treatment was in the best interests of the child's wellbeing.

The father refused to consent.

So how much sway should he have?

I would say zero. The courts correctly agreed. The father, who the court's written decision, listed as disingenuous, and as trying to delay court proceedings to delay a decision and thereby delay treatment, has probably permanently destroyed his relationship with his child in favour of pushing his worldview and ideology.
Click to expand...

Yet if we were talking a tattoo, people would be stringing the mother up.

Imagine " well the child wanted one, the doctor said it wouldn't cause medical harm, and the mother was on board. I don't understand why the kid couldn't get a tattoo".
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Which is more or less literally what I just said in my previous post. But I would also say that inclusiveness is also at the core of sports.
Click to expand...

What? No, what sports are you thinking of?

From playground kids not getting picked, to city leagues to the NFL draft, sport is about not including certain people based on skill level. The fat kids isn't going to get picked for soccer, and when Wayne Gretzky comes to visit relatives he doesn't get to play for the city league team.

I hate watching sports ,but I at least understand them.
 
cullennz said:
I can see exactly what till happen actually.

Prediction

Elite women, and I mean women, not woman, will start boycotting big events in protest.
Click to expand...

When Richards entered her first women's professional event most of the women dropped out, but when she won her court case and entered the US Open there were not so many that dropped out.

So not a prediction if it has already happened.
 
Darat said:
Therefore it is really just a matter for the sporting bodies to determine if they want their "womens" sports to be open to trans women.
Click to expand...

Maybe it should be, but it isn't. Governments have shown themselves quite willing to intervene and force a particular solution on sporting bodies.
 
I ran sprints when I was in high school. I was pretty good, good enough to make the state meet. My personal best was 10.61 seconds for 100 meters. That time would win every Olympic women's competition ever held. In fact, it would tie the undisputed women's world record (there is controversy around FloJo's WR run.) So a pretty decent male high-school sprinter is as fast as the fastest woman who ever lived. That's not me blowing my own horn; that's just biology. Trans women are biologically men, and they have the athletic advantages that confers.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Well, I think I mentioned earlier that what is being lost is the pretence that these women ever had a chance in the first place. And seems to assume that women only play sports because they think they could be Serena Williams... I am not sure that's the case. But in any case again this seems to simply assume that transwomen are going to completely dominate sports and there will be no outlet for other women and I think I have repeatedly said that i acknowledge that maintaining the competitive element is important.
Click to expand...

I just watched a special about women in sport for International women's day and the universal emphasis from the women on why promoting women's sport is important is for exposure, so that young girls and women could be encouraged to participate, and attempt to excel if they choose and are capable. Growing up in a household of boys, I had pretty much zero appreciation for this. Even though every little boy I played hockey with were obviously inspired by seeing NHLers on TV (Canadian), I did not appreciate how that was lacking for women. Now as the husband of a very athletic wife and a father of three girls I am beginning to better understand that in our culture, sport has more value than just as a commercial entertainment venture. For health and fitness, as well as just for societal participation, visible examples of women excelling and competing is inspirational.

I can only go on the arguments being made... and the thread title and repeated attempts to scream the same thing isn't convincing to me. And I do think that anyone who has concluded that trans-women shouldn't ever compete against cis-women hasn't given it due thought because I have given an example where it seems to work fine.

And that's not to say all transwomen should compete against all cis women all of the time.
Click to expand...

I agree that the thread title puts the discussion into an unfortunate combative framework and I can understand your choice to take a defensive/protective stance. I can see you acknowledge the inherent challenge in the situation, but I feel like you may feel hesitant to concede any main points lest it appear that you are failing to defend a vulnerable group. I can appreciate that, but I feel like even compassionate reason will conclude that having trans-women compete with females is not the best solution. As you mentioned, some examples can be found where it hasn't been problematic, but as you also acknowledge, it can be inappropriate and I do feel it is likely to generate considerable difficulties for females if it becomes generally accepted.

One must concede the point that biological sex cannot be chosen, even if the point is raised in a bigoted fashion. This does not me one abandons compassion and advocacy, just that one pursues it within the limits of reality.
 
sadhatter said:
Then change the definition of trans women for sport ( to head of the screams of 'transphobe' ) to require the woman to be taking hormones.

Seems to nicely tie the issue up.
Click to expand...

That still leaves the issue that 12 months worth of lack of testosterone will not undo a lifetime of having it in your system. A woman taking testosterone will begin transforming the body into a male one, while a man not having it won't begin transforming the body in the other direction. E.g., the former will begin to have broader shoulders, while a castrated guy doesn't start having narrower shoulders.

Basically all you'll have is less quick muscle growth, since testosterone is an anabolic steroid, but even the musculature won't be undone in a year. (Unless you stop training, anyway.) The rest of the changes to your body are cumulative and a one way street.
 
HansMustermann said:
That still leaves the issue that 12 months worth of lack of testosterone will not undo a lifetime of having it in your system. A woman taking testosterone will begin transforming the body into a male one, while a man not having it won't begin transforming the body in the other direction. E.g., the former will begin to have broader shoulders, while a castrated guy doesn't start having narrower shoulders.

Basically all you'll have is less quick muscle growth, since testosterone is an anabolic steroid, but even the musculature won't be undone in a year. (Unless you stop training, anyway.) The rest of the changes to your body are cumulative and a one way street.
Click to expand...

You seem to misunderstand my point.

By my definition one taking hormones is disqualified due to taking hormones. If they do not they are disqualified for being a different gender.

It's a lot of hot **** but apperantly we have to resort to word play to convince people that maybe it's a little unfair to have males (not men) competing against women in sport.
 
Well, you may be a little optimistic if you think that'll stop the "it's unfair if I don't get a lollipop" gang. But more power to you if you manage to convince any of them.
 
HansMustermann said:
Well, you may be a little optimistic if you think that'll stop the "it's unfair if I don't get a lollipop" gang. But more power to you if you manage to convince any of them.
Click to expand...

They don't need to be convinced and they can cry as long as they want. It won't change anything.

The thread title is correct. Thread over! ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom