Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Ziggurat]

Judging by the Canada judgement there MAY well be an argument that waxing male and female genitals are different products.

That this argument is not certain to win the day is troubling in and of itself. That you are OK with that possibility is also worrisome.

 

[Emily's Cat]

He lost in court, you may recall. And the existence of a law doesn't prevent people from arguing that that law is wrong or unjust.

And no, I'm not going to dismiss as "feelz" the very real issue that waxing male genitals is a different texhnique that requires different materials and different training from waxing female genitals, or indeed the concerns of a woman about allowing a man to come into her own home and get naked in front of her.

Do we even need to go that far though? Can we not stop at the absolutely preposterous premise that trying to legally force a person to handle one's genitalia is disgusting and unethical?

Merely claiming that it's a hate crime for someone to refuse to touch one's genitals is utterly ridiculous and disturbing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A raped woman asking for a female doctor is just as much about 'feels' as a trans woman doctor not wishing to be treated as a man in her job. A woman not wanting to wax a sack is just as much about 'feels' as a transwoman wanting her sack waxed.

Imagine the bigoted feelings of that rape victim, not wanting to be further traumatized by having a male invasively touching her genitals during an exam, after having just had a male invasively touching her genitals! It's just unacceptable that an ovarian who has just been raped would have the gall to be so transphobic as to be uncomfortable having a male-bodied person examine her! Geez, the nerve of that rape victim! Doesn't she realize that it's literal violence against the transwoman to not affirm her gender identity? That rape victim should be punished for her hatefulness!

And really, the absolute intolerance of a female, thinking that she has a right to set boundaries and refuse to touch male genitalia if she doesn't want to! Doesn't she know that people have a right to get their genitals handled? It's downright unthinkable that a female raised in a religious faith that views physical contact with unrelated males as a sin worthy of physical "correction". How dare those females refuse to touch the penis and testicles of a male who wants to have them touched! She has no right to refuse that!

Your views of what constitutes bigotry continue to amaze me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If all the transwomen compete in the female division then nobody is denied participation in sport either.

If everyone competed together nobody would be denied participation in sport.

Really? I mean, just... really? You think this makes sense?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sport is the very epitome of pitting people with unfair biological advantages against each other. Sport has never been about a level playing field. It's about being able to create a spectacle. The issue of transwomen competing in sport is a largely social one not a biological one.

No, it is absolutely a biological one.

Unless, of course, the goal is to run females out of sports altogether?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Bill C6 currently being pushed in Canada seeks to ban conversion therapy for under 18s, defined as ‘a practice that seeks to change an individual's sexual orientation to heterosexual, to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviours, or to change an individual's gender identity to match the sex they were assigned at birth’
This is similar to legislation already passed in other countries - a method used by activists to sneak legislation through without scrutiny by appending it to issues related to gay rights, which people already understand.

I'm at a loss as to how the hell it is NOT conversion therapy to convince a child experiencing some dysphoria - which is common among gay and lesbian children - that they need to permanently medicalize themselves and transition because their attraction to members of the same sex and their non-conformity with restrictive gender norms means they are actually heterosexuals who were born in the wrong body.

It seems like the fact that gender reassignment is viewed as an acceptable means to avoid the horrific sin of being homosexual in muslim-controlled countries might give one a bit of a worry that transgender ideology is, in and of itself, conversion therapy.

"Hey kid, we've finally figured out that we can't 'cure' you of your sexual orientation... but we can do the next best thing! We can physically alter your body (and make you sterile in the process) so that you're actually heterosexual! Isn't that great!"


ETA: I hope that the various groups in CA can rely on the recent rulings regarding Tavistock and the prescription of puberty blockers in the UK for their arguments.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Judging by the Canada judgement there MAY well be an argument that waxing male and female genitals are different products. That seems to be a technical argument. But also bear in mind that Yanniv was refused waxing services for arms and legs also and I think it would be a push to argue that waxing trans legs is a different product from cis legs.

Yaniv targeted minority immigrant women, most of whom were muslim. Yes, they refused to wax Yaniv's arms and legs - because for them, having physical contact with an unrelated male is a massive sin, and can be enforced by their relatives physically abusing or even killing them.

Do you seriously think that Yaniv's desire to feel like a female, and to force other people to interact as if Yaniv is a female, should override existing religious protections that actually put people in danger of harm?

Or are you of the mind that failing to affirm Yaniv's internal feeling is "literal violence"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you offer a service then you have to offer that service to everyone and you can't discriminate against people. And it doesn't matter if that's because of race, sexual orientation or the presence of a scrotum. No matter how much you insist that testicles mean discrimination should be OK.

So... let's say that a male sex-worker exclusively services female clients. Are you saying that if a male person wants to have sex with that male sex-worker, that male sex-worker is OBLIGATED to let himself be penetrated by another man's penis, even if he really doesn't want to?

 

[JihadJane]

A raped woman asking for a female doctor is just as much about 'feels' as a trans woman doctor not wishing to be treated as a man in her job. A woman not wanting to wax a sack is just as much about 'feels' as a transwoman wanting her sack waxed.


At least be honest about that.

How old are you?

Alternatively, WTF?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I swear I feel like I'm going a bit mad. The overlaps in ideological premises between TRAs and MRAs are discomfiting.

 

[Nakani]

It seems that people are unhappy with discrimination laws being explained with parallels to examples of discrimination laws. Because penises and testicles?!? It's just weird.

These cases seem much more analogous to the 'gay cakes' episode. If you offer a service then you have to offer that service to everyone and you can't discriminate against people. And it doesn't matter if that's because of race, sexual orientation or the presence of a scrotum. No matter how much you insist that testicles mean discrimination should be OK.

Don't like it? Provide a good reason why you should be exempt or don't go into business offering that service to the public. 'I don't want to' isn't a sufficient reason. We don't live in that libertarian dystopia that some of you guys seem to want to.

I reserve the right to hate and love as I please. If you want to send me to jail because I refuse to make a lynching cake for the grand wizard's birthday, you're gonna have to shoot me first.

No law can make everyone like each other.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's the nub of the issue, and why there need to be stringent rules to allow them to compete.

Sport demands a level playing field by excluding drug-taking, so it has a responsibility to exclude people with an unfair biological advantage.

Hence why we need to get Michel Phelps banned from competition, he has an unfair biological advantage and so should not be allowed to compete and be stripped of his medals. Oh wait no one actually cares about unfair biological advantage outside of trans issues.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hence why we need to get Michel Phelps banned from competition, he has an unfair biological advantage and so should not be allowed to compete and be stripped of his medals. Oh wait no one actually cares about unfair biological advantage outside of trans issues.

The existence of weight classes in many contact sports, as well as skill classes in others, pretty much invalidates your inane quip.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The existence of weight classes in many contact sports, as well as skill classes in others, pretty much invalidates your inane quip.

Yes yes yes pointing out hypocrisy gets under peoples skin and they struggle to justify themselves as to why any unfair biological advantage is fine in men's sports but certain ones are out in women's.

I am reminded of this article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/we-celebrated-michael-phelpss-genetic-differences-why-punish-caster-semenya-for-hers/2019/05/02/93d08c8c-6c2b-11e9-be3a-33217240a539_story.html

Clearly we are fine with unfair biological advantage as long as it is a man with it. For some reason we don't care about the integrity of men's sports.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes yes yes pointing out hypocrisy gets under peoples skin and they struggle to justify themselves as to why any unfair biological advantage is fine in men's sports but certain ones are out in women's.

...

Clearly we are fine with unfair biological advantage as long as it is a man with it. For some reason we don't care about the integrity of men's sports.

That is a ridiculous response. Weight classes apply in both mens sports and womens, as do skill-level distinctions. We care about producing equitable competitions for people to be their best within controlled variances in all kinds of sports.

Why is it only when it comes to females that you think the division is "unfair"?

 

[ponderingturtle]

That is a ridiculous response. Weight classes apply in both mens sports and womens, as do skill-level distinctions. We care about producing equitable competitions for people to be their best within controlled variances in all kinds of sports.

Why is it only when it comes to females that you think the division is "unfair"?

Why is excluding those individuals with unfair biological advantages in men's sports to make them more competitive like we do with women's sports such a bad idea? Clearly Caster was winning too much and no one could compete therefor she should be banned and Michael likewise.

It is about the integrity of competition. And of course in neither of their sports are their classes either. The simple fact is that some people have unfair biological advantages and need to be banned, why is this so controversial instead of what you believe that some women have unfair biological advantages and need to be banned.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Why is excluding those individuals with unfair biological advantages in men's sports to make them more competitive like we do with women's sports such a bad idea? Clearly Caster was winning too much and no one could compete therefor she should be banned and Michael likewise.

It is about the integrity of competition. And of course in neither of their sports are their classes either. The simple fact is that some people have unfair biological advantages and need to be banned, why is this so controversial instead of what you believe that some women have unfair biological advantages and need to be banned.

This is so moronic, I wonder why some people are so attached to arguments like this or even if they genuinely believe in them. Why should sports be segregated by sex at all, if men merely "have an advantage", much like a taller or faster competitor would have?

When you realise why sports are segregated by sex in the first place, you have the answer as why biological males should not be competing against females.

The US women's national soccer team, arguably the very best team in the world, get creamed when they practice against 16 year old high school boys teams. The Australian National team recently lost 8-0 to a boys team in similar fashion.

I suspect anybody still advocating for transwomen in women's sports knows very little about sports or is just trolling.

 

[Meadmaker]

Why is excluding those individuals with unfair biological advantages in men's sports to make them more competitive like we do with women's sports such a bad idea? Clearly Caster was winning too much and no one could compete therefor she should be banned and Michael likewise.

It is about the integrity of competition. And of course in neither of their sports are their classes either. The simple fact is that some people have unfair biological advantages and need to be banned, why is this so controversial instead of what you believe that some women have unfair biological advantages and need to be banned.

I'm going to attempt to take this question seriously.


If one male is far enough above the other male competitors that the result is a foregone conclusion even before the match starts, people still enjoy watching the match in order to see such a talented athlete perform

If one female is far enough above the other female competitors that the result is a foregone conclusion even before the match starts, people still enjoy watching the match in order to see such a talented athlete perform.

If one female has a remote chance of winning against a group of male competitors, people absolutely love watching the match, because the woman is obviously a whole new level of awesome.

If one male is far enough above a group of female competitors that the result is a foregone conclusion, people wonder why they are bothering to watch, because of course the male is going to win. Duh. And he, or she, if the person uses feminie pronouns, is not even putting in an impressive performance. Boring.


ETA: The above describes the case for spectator sports. It would be worded differently for student competitions that are not primarily aimed at providing entertainment, but it's basically the same thing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm going to attempt to take this question seriously.


If one male is far enough above the other male competitors that the result is a foregone conclusion even before the match starts, people still enjoy watching the match in order to see such a talented athlete perform

If one female is far enough above the other female competitors that the result is a foregone conclusion even before the match starts, people still enjoy watching the match in order to see such a talented athlete perform.

If one female has a remote chance of winning against a group of male competitors, people absolutely love watching the match, because the woman is obviously a whole new level of awesome.

If one male is far enough above a group of female competitors that the result is a foregone conclusion, people wonder why they are bothering to watch, because of course the male is going to win. Duh. And he, or she, if the person uses feminie pronouns, is not even putting in an impressive performance. Boring.

As an analogy...

If one adult is far enough above the other adult competitors that the result is a foregone conclusion even before the match starts, people still enjoy watching the match in order to see such a talented athlete perform

If one child is far enough above the other child competitors that the result is a foregone conclusion even before the match starts, people still enjoy watching the match in order to see such a talented athlete perform.

If one child has a remote chance of winning against a group of adult competitors, people absolutely love watching the match, because the child is obviously a whole new level of awesome.

If one adult is far enough above a group of child competitors that the result is a foregone conclusion, people wonder why they are bothering to watch, because of course the adult is going to win. Duh. And he, or she, if the person uses feminine pronouns, is not even putting in an impressive performance. Boring.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It sucks... but reality is that athletic performance of females, in general, is far enough below the athletic capabilities of males, in general, to make the adult/child comparison pretty damned close to valid.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why is excluding those individuals with unfair biological advantages in men's sports to make them more competitive like we do with women's sports such a bad idea? Clearly Caster was winning too much and no one could compete therefor she should be banned and Michael likewise.

It is about the integrity of competition. And of course in neither of their sports are their classes either. The simple fact is that some people have unfair biological advantages and need to be banned, why is this so controversial instead of what you believe that some women have unfair biological advantages and need to be banned.

So... do you support getting rid of all segregation in sports? Do you think it should be all co-ed with no difference between competitors on the basis of sex?

Or do you just want to replace that with a "gender identification" segregation so that transwomen can compete against ciswomen?

What's your objective?