Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

Status
Not open for further replies.
IsThisTheLife said:
Difficult to imagine that "she" has got as far as "she" has without some serious behind-the-scenes greasing of "her" career in the form of directives issued on how it's reported in the corporate media.



As I've said before (yeh, yeh, I know - 'conspiracies' is that-a-way ===>), I perceive a long game, a social engineering project with clear objectives is behind the apparent madness, and this unbelievably shameless ***** is just another tool (knowing or not).
Click to expand...
Doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory. Who's issuing the directives?
 
This is all fairly well-known and well-understood. This is one interesting article.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/

I've read stuff about an overall aim to promote "transhumanism", that is to decouple our consciousness from our bodies and load it into machines (I think) and about paedophile interests being strongly behind this because if young children can consent to changing their sex why can't they consent to sex, and also the prurient interest some have in the perpetual adolescence of the puberty-blocked boy/woman or girl/man.

A lot of that sounds quite far-fetched and I'm not sure I buy into it but at the same time it seems difficult to refute.
 
Puppycow said:
I sorta see what you mean, but the third one's more ambiguous. Most people have focused on just two of them. If I passed them on the street, I wouldn't even wonder. Large heads, square jaws, men's hairstyles, men's-style glasses on one.
Click to expand...


The female seems to have the name "FOO" on her shirt and she's wearing the grey shirt in the lower picture. The whole body shape needs to be looked at. And lets just say the one that seems to have the name "YANG" on the shirt needs to do a better job of tucking.

Though I agree, the entire thing could be one big elaborate troll.
 
Last edited:
While I think there are valid concerns, speculating about someone's gender based on their appearance seems unnecessary. Even kind of offensive.

Speculate based on the Chinese propaganda storyline, instead.
 
I'm not speculating about their gender I'm speculating about their sex. Which is kinda obvious really. Since they're (allegedly) participating in a female athletics event, I think noting and remarking on their sex is pretty relevant.
 
Who cares what their gender is? They're wearing running gear. They could be aporagender or maverique for all I care. It's their sex that's important as far as a women's athletics event is concerned, and it's entirely legitimate to observe that three of them are not women.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm not speculating about their gender I'm speculating about their sex. Which is kinda obvious really. Since they're (allegedly) participating in a female athletics event, I think noting and remarking on their sex is pretty relevant.
Click to expand...

Herp derp. I do not give even a single flying **** about the gender/sex distinction. If you don't know which I mean, and it's actually important to figure it out, ask me. If you do know which I mean, then kindly shut up and get to the point.

Which is... No. You're judging someone's sex based on their conformity to stereotypes of appearance. Noting and remarking on their sex is pretty relevant to the event organizers and the people with the training, access, and responsibility to confirm to the organizers that the competitors are eligible to compete. If you think they got it wrong, you need something a little less offensive than "Beth looks like a dude" to base your objection on.

Well, you don't strictly need something less offensive. Might be nice, though.
 
Rolfe said:
Who cares what their gender is? They're wearing running gear. They could be aporagender or maverique for all I care. It's their sex that's important as far as a women's athletics event is concerned, and it's entirely legitimate to observe that three of them are not women.
Click to expand...

You're trying to infer sex from gendered appearance. You're not looking at primary sex characteristics, or even secondary sex characteristics.

And are you actually asian? I understand there's certainly Chinese living in Scotland, but are you Chinese?

I ask, because of the well-known cross-race effect. So I wonder how competent you actually are, to infer the sex of someone of a different race than yourself, from their apparent gender presentation.

Again, I think you raise some good points in this thread. I just very much disagree with you about the propriety of this particular line of argument.
 
I can see the bloody bulge in their pants. Is that not good enough?


(It has surprised me from time to time in this debate how poor a lot of men seem to be at distinguishing someone's sex. I'm beginning to wonder if women have a more finely-honed perception of that.)
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I can see the bloody bulge in their pants. Is that not good enough?
Click to expand...
In the video clip that was linked here? The quality isn't good enough for me to see anything in their pants.

(It has surprised me from time to time in this debate how poor a lot of men seem to be at distinguishing someone's sex. I'm beginning to wonder if women have a more finely-honed perception of that.)
Click to expand...

(Or maybe it's Dunning-Krueger. Or confirmation bias. Or rhetorical investment.)
 
Last edited:
In the photos of them in running gear. I still think it might be an elaborate trolling hoax though.
 
theprestige said:
I don't know, is it? If you have an argument to make, and you think that article supports it, then make your argument. Don't ask me about it.
Click to expand...

The argument is that gender expressionWP is all about appearances and behaviors which we use to signal our social role.

Seems a bit iffy to get all tetchy about trying to understand the visual cues which other people are trying to convey.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
You're trying to infer sex from gendered appearance. You're not looking at primary sex characteristics, or even secondary sex characteristics.

And are you actually asian? I understand there's certainly Chinese living in Scotland, but are you Chinese?

I ask, because of the well-known cross-race effect. So I wonder how competent you actually are, to infer the sex of someone of a different race than yourself, from their apparent gender presentation.

Again, I think you raise some good points in this thread. I just very much disagree with you about the propriety of this particular line of argument.
Click to expand...

Well it's obviously not the cross-race effect. If Rolfe were the only person to see it, we might consider that, but the according to the article other Chinese were questioning their sex first.
Rolfe said:
I can see the bloody bulge in their pants. Is that not good enough?
Click to expand...

Probably just a shadow.
 
Rolfe said:
Who cares what their gender is? They're wearing running gear. They could be aporagender or maverique for all I care. It's their sex that's important as far as a women's athletics event is concerned, and it's entirely legitimate to observe that three of them are not women.
Click to expand...

Looks like they are indeed female.

I found the video of their race in Japan, running with all the other females. (I had thought perhaps the team names were switched up between the 'mixed' events since some were newly added.) I don't think China would risk the embarrassment of Japan conducting a simple chromosome test.

I understand 'manly' women, or even bulked up steroid-infused women...but this seems to be on another level...as if female development was stunted and male hormones introduced at a young age. I think looking this way naturally would be a rarity.
 
I think Rolfe is going by the trouser bulge in the runner on the far left in this photo:
aN0Z4Q3_460s.jpg


But it's less obvious in this photo so it may just be a shadow after all:
fa97ec0c-c884-11e9-b4e3-f796e392de6b_1320x770_152733.png
 
I think Fu(?) being the only biological female of the four is even more obvious in that photo, but it hardly matters. (I wonder how long it took Yang to grow his hair that long?)
 
theprestige said:
You're trying to infer sex from gendered appearance. You're not looking at primary sex characteristics, or even secondary sex characteristics.

And are you actually asian? I understand there's certainly Chinese living in Scotland, but are you Chinese?

I ask, because of the well-known cross-race effect. So I wonder how competent you actually are, to infer the sex of someone of a different race than yourself, from their apparent gender presentation.

Again, I think you raise some good points in this thread. I just very much disagree with you about the propriety of this particular line of argument.
Click to expand...
Hard to tell if you're trying to play at Devil's Advocate or just being a PITA contrarian.

I suggest you look up 'physiognomy' and 'physiology' in the context of human sexes; differences, for a start, particularly given you're trying to pick an argument with someone who's pretty expert in a biological field.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
The title of his doctoral thesis is something like "Why you don't have to know what you're talking about". I kid you not.
Click to expand...


[delurk][ot]That's hilarious. I'm going to ask my major professor if I can use that for my master's thesis. But as it's on statistical quality control in the production of replacement shoulder joints, I doubt she'll agree. :([/ot][/delurk]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom