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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's kind of where the thread started. With Laurel Hubbard I believe. And Rachel McKinnon more recently. That is pretty much the point.
 
d4m10n said:
It is not, although avoiding emotional distress is not exactly a bad goal.
Click to expand...


Does the emotional distress (not to mention the massive loss of life chances attached to losing sports scholarships in America) of girls and women who have trained their socks off only to be beaten by boys who've decided they feel like they might be girls count for anything at all?
 
Rolfe said:
Does the emotional distress (not to mention the massive loss of life chances attached to losing sports scholarships in America) of girls and women who have trained their socks off only to be beaten by boys who've decided they feel like they might be girls count for anything at all?
Click to expand...
Of course, yes.
 
Puppycow said:
There's probably no point in responding to this, but you don't seem to care about the actual real-world consequences, do you.

To everyone else: I remember listening to a podcast about Philosophy and they were talking about the difference between deontology and consequentialism. To illustrate the most ridiculous extreme that deontology could be taken to, he quoted some kind of theologian or cleric (whose name I forget, but I think he may have been a Catholic bishop or something like that) saying something like (paraphrasing from memory) "It would be better for the whole world to perish and millions of innocents to die in agony than for a single venal sin to be committed." In other words, real-world consequences don't matter. Just following the commands of God is the only thing that matters, consequences be damned.

It confirmed to me that I am definitely in the consequentialist camp.
Click to expand...

I have said repeatedly I am a deontologist.
 
d4m10n said:
Yes but if Bob is the only representative of TWAW left, I'm not sensing that we're going to have a vigorous, well-sourced, two-sided debate.
Click to expand...

I'm not on the left. I'm pretty far from the left. So my take comes from a different place.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm (clearly) not getting my point across (clearly) here.

One more try: You can divide people who have the advantage of signficant virilisation from those who do not have such an advantage without having to take a stance on what it means to be a woman or a man.

For example:
Click to expand...


You're clearly not listening.

You haven't given any reason at all not to categorise sports according to biological sex, other than what appears to be an eagerness to appeast the batsqueak crazy trans lobby. The definition of mine you quoted at the end is in fact a definition of biological sex, that is what it means to be a woman or a man.

Perhaps you still haven't realised that your ill-thought-through pet plan incidentally throws actual (XX) women who happen to suffer from a virilisation syndrome under the bus. At present they are allowed to compete without any penalty. Your little scheme would disadvantage them, throw them out of their sports.

Now there may be some legitimate debate about whether HAC women or PCOS women or even CAIS women should be allowed to compete in women's events because they have a biological advantage over "normal" women. However this is a very deep area to get into. Once you start that, do you start disqualifying women who happen to be born with unusually lng legs or something like that? This is not somewhere the sports authorities have attempted to go and one can see why. You just want to charge in there blindly, because you think you can see a way of appeasing the trans lobby? Nice one.

Men are adult human males. Women are adult human females. The determining factor as to which of these anyone is is the developmental pathway they took as a foetus. There are only two pathways and any foetus takes one of the other. It is trivially easy to determine which one this is in >99.9% of individuals, even your example of Ewa Klobukowska above.

The only possible reason for diverging from this simple, clear and equitable classification is the batsqueak crazy claims of the trans lobby who believe that a mental illness entitles a male to compete against females.

cullennz said:
Or just say biological male and biological female.

If your are rare intersex these are the rules you have to pass/fail

Your main goal seems to be avoiding a stance on male and female, is this to not hurt peoples feelings?
Click to expand...


Exactly. Even the number of intersex cases where there is room for genuine debate is tiny. There's no doubt that Caster Semenya is biologically male, the problem lies in the weak and woolly rules. You can talk about HAC and PCOS (which aren't even intersex conditions) and CAIS if you like, but unless you're also prepared to disqualify women with other natural advantageous "abnormalities" like long legs you're on very shaky ground.

Not hurting the feelings of mentally ill men seems to be all important, while the feelings of women and girl athletes get chucked in the bin as usual.
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
So, the word literally has no meaning. To say "I identify as a woman" means the same as "I identify as a glarbentrop".

"I identify as a woman"
"What is a woman?"
"Someone who identifies as a woman"
So: "I identify as [someone who identifies as [someone who identifies as [someone who identifies as [...]]]"
Click to expand...

I have no opinion on this response because you are no longer stating my position.

I have no opinion on what constitutes make/female or what a sports fan is.
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
If you ask someone who claims to be a fan of a particular sports team what they mean by the term "fan", they won't say "I mean that I claim to be a fan of that team". They'll probably say "I mean that I'm a supporter of that team" or "I like that team more than other teams in the league" or something similar that's actually related to the meaning of the word "fan".

So no, that word doesn't work that way either. For words to be useful for conveying information they have to actually have meaning.
Click to expand...

And if you dive down enough into the meaning of just about any noun you will find that things almost always become somewhat circular or ill-defined.

Define 'table' as random example.

People asking for definitions of 'women' don't actually want them or care what response they get, they simply want to exclude people based on their own prejudices and think this is some kind of gotcha.

It's pathetic really seeing otherwise sensible people reduce themselves to this kind of nonsense
 
Rolfe said:
You haven't given any reason at all not to categorise sports according to biological sex, other than what appears to be an eagerness to [appease] the batsqueak crazy trans lobby.
Click to expand...
I should think the reason fairly obvious, but here we go. It is vastly easier for organizations such as the WNBA or NCAA to publicly defend inclusion criteria grounded firmly in scientific ideas such as SRY genes and bioavailable androgens than it is for them to publicly argue the metaphysics of language around everyday terms such as “woman” and “man” which are wrapped up in an ongoing culture war between second and third wave feminists. (One which your side appears to be losing, by the way.)

There is no good reason to focus on gender at all (so far as I can tell) when all you are trying to do is create a level playing field for around half of any given human population.
Rolfe said:
The definition of mine you quoted at the end is in fact a definition of biological sex, that is what it means to be a woman or a man.
Click to expand...
And that’s exactly where you went wrong. It would have been much easier, in terms of PR, to leave the culture war bits out and focus entirely on the attributes you want your athletes to have or not have.
 
Last edited:
I should think the reason fairly obvious, but here we go. It is vastly easier for organizations such as the WNBA or NCAA to publicly defend inclusion criteria grounded firmly in scientific ideas such as SRY genes and bioavailable androgens than it is for them to publicly argue the metaphysics of language around everyday terms such as “woman” and “man” which are wrapped up in an ongoing culture war between second and third wave feminists. (One which your side appears to be losing, by the way.)
Click to expand...


No, it's simply necessary to have a good scientific definition of male and female to apply in cases where there may be some dispute. That's what these "inclusion criteria" do. And if you seriously think this current (very localised) insanity is going to gain popular traction rather than being the 2010s version of lobotomy of the recovered memories/Satanic sex abuse panics, you're in for a surprise.

There is no good reason to focus on gender at all (so far as I can tell) when all you are trying to do is create a level playing field for around half of any given human population.
Click to expand...


I'm not interested in either of these things. I'm interested in keeping males out of women's sports, for the sake of the women and girls who are being pushed out.

And that’s exactly where you went wrong. It would have been much easier, in terms of PR, to leave the culture war bits out and focus entirely on the attributes you want your athletes to have or not have.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your spurious opinion that I "went wrong". I'm interested in keeping males out of female sports. To do that it is necessary to have a solid biologically-based definition of male and female. I'm not interested in excluding naturally virilised females or including puberty-blocked eunuchs.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I should think the reason fairly obvious, but here we go. It is vastly easier for organizations such as the WNBA or NCAA to publicly defend inclusion criteria grounded firmly in scientific ideas such as SRY genes and bioavailable androgens than it is for them to publicly argue the metaphysics of language around everyday terms such as “woman” and “man” which are wrapped up in an ongoing culture war between second and third wave feminists. (One which your side appears to be losing, by the way.)
Click to expand...

Even the scientific stuff has to be decided on an arbitrary basis derived from how we feel about it. It's just rationalisation.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I have no opinion on this response because you are no longer stating my position.
Click to expand...
I'm stating what seems to be your opinion based on your posts. If I've failed to understand you could try to be a little more clear.

I have no opinion on what constitutes make/female or what a sports fan is.
Click to expand...

That's obviously false because you've actually stated your opinions about those things.
 
Rolfe said:
And if you seriously think this current (very localised) insanity is going to gain popular traction rather than being the 2010s version of lobotomy of the recovered memories/Satanic sex abuse panics, you're in for a surprise.
Click to expand...

I suppose we shall see, but the writing is fairly well on the wall here in the States. Just to take higher education as an example, we have 40 colleges which focus on educating women. Back in 2017, around half of them had a policy for admitting transgender women. In 2019, you'd have trouble finding even one that does not have such a policy.

I don't know about Scotland, but the trend here in North America is towards ever more acceptance of transwoman as women in most social and educational settings. The only exceptions which spring to my mind are religious private institutions and (of course) sex-segregated sport.
 
Last edited:
We're at the point where the majority of people haven't looked beyond the idea that it's "kind" and "inclusive" to coddle mentally ill men who want to be women, and haven't really thought the thing through beyond that. But Rhys/Rachel McKinnon and Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv and a whole bunch of other assorted horrors are doing a pretty good job at addressing that issue.

Now that people are seeing women being raped in prison by men who identify as women, women being forced out of domestic violence shelters by men who identify as women, girls holding in their urine all day and staying away from school entirely when they have their period to avoid having to use a toilet to which boys have access, boys and men allowed to go to guide camp and sleep and bathe with the girls, men in the women's changing rooms in department stores and swimming pools, and unfit flabby men beating women in women's sporting events, it's all coming out in the open.

That many if not most of this involves the flagrant performing of autogynaephilic fetishising is something that is also not lost on a lot of people. It's going to set back the position of transsexuals who were genuinely trying just to fit in and that's a pity but it's not women's main concern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom