• 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.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
And, to repeat something I have said many times in these threads, show me a group of people who are adamant that transgirls should be included in female sports, and I will show you a group of people who think sports are stupid or, at the very least, overrated.

People who actually care about sports don't want transfemales competing against biological females.
Click to expand...

I care about sports very much. Next strawman.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Troubling and worrisome that discrimination being OK is not the default assumption? What exactly is it that troubles and worries you?
Click to expand...

Weight classes in boxing is "discrimination". Under-21 football discriminates on age. Paralympics discriminate on disabilities. Paying out pensions at age 65 discriminates on age as well, regardless what age you identify as.

We discriminate perfectly sensibly and legitimately in a whole host of areas.
 
Meadmaker said:
That's irrelevant and stupid.
Click to expand...

if the argument is that 'people want to see X and not Y' therefore we should exclude Y then it's not that irrelevant or stupid. It would mean that any X and Y would be equally valid.

I know it just seems obvious to you that this is different, but the arguments aren't different.
 
Ron Obvious said:
Weight classes in boxing is "discrimination". Under-21 football discriminates on age. Paralympics discriminate on disabilities. Paying out pensions at age 65 discriminates on age as well, regardless what age you identify as.

We discriminate perfectly sensibly and legitimately in a whole host of areas.
Click to expand...

And whats that got to do with waxing scrotums exactly?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
My comment wasn't meant in retort to whatever it is being discussed here. The last couple pages strike me as especially tedious. I was attempting to steer things back towards the topic of excluding trans students from sport.
Click to expand...

That's WHY we exclude most transwomen from competing against females. Meadmaker outlined it pretty clearly.
 
Manger Douse said:
You're comparing doctors with ball waxers - do they have similar responsibilities? A pledge they sign perhaps?
Click to expand...

All commercial operations have a responsibility to comply with legislation in the country that they operate, including anti-discrimination legislation.

Do you think some occupations should be exempt?
 
Ron Obvious said:
That's another one of those cases of sensible and legitimate discrimination, just like merely identifying as 65 years old doesn't entitle you to a pension payout, because - and now follow me closely here - you're not actually 65 years old.
Click to expand...

Why is it sensible and legitimate? That seems to be the nub of the issue.

And why should it be worrisome or troubling that someone else may consider it otherwise? Or that it may need to be something that is given due consideration?
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Troubling and worrisome that discrimination being OK is not the default assumption? What exactly is it that troubles and worries you?

Is this a general rule with you? If I go to a female doctor and want to be checked for testicular cancer should she be allowed to say 'no way, I'm not dealing with balls'? Or is there something specific about waxing that makes it special?
Click to expand...

Hey, hey! Nothing like forcing females to handle the genitalia of males, without their consent! All in the name of "inclusiveness" because if that female declines to handle a male's genitals, it means she's a bigot!

How is this not an incel talking point?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
All commercial operations have a responsibility to comply with legislation in the country that they operate, including anti-discrimination legislation.

Do you think some occupations should be exempt?
Click to expand...

If my occupation was shaving fannys I should hope I'd be exempt from shaving balls
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
if the argument is that 'people want to see X and not Y' therefore we should exclude Y then it's not that irrelevant or stupid. It would mean that any X and Y would be equally valid.

I know it just seems obvious to you that this is different, but the arguments aren't different.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Maybe I misunderstood ponderingturtle's comment. I thought it was just his general "I'm going to make an irrelevant and stupid analogy" style.


All right, then let's take this seriously.

You're right. If people are tuning in for eye candy, then it's ok to exclude ugly people. I guess that's why WWE "athletes" usually have a certain body type.

In practice, if it became known that the league was doing that, and it wasn't WWE or some other phony sporting league, their popularity would plunge. I would not be entertained by "Playboy Models' Softball Championship", but if someone wanted to put a sports league together like that, feel free to get on your youtube streaming channel and go for it. Some people would like it. Sell tickets.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
They really don't. But even if they do then shouldn't it be incumbent on people to demonstrate that their presence destroys the purpose of the sport in order to exclude them rather than just assume it a priori?
Click to expand...

You mean like the multiple instances of biological males who identify as transwomen and transgirls who are absolutely trouncing and destroying the records in female sports? You know, that kind of a reason?

Because, you know, it's completely oppressive bigotry to NOT allow males to dominate females!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom