• 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.
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...

This is ridiculous. No, not all X and Y are equally valid. FFS.

People want to see puppies and kitties, they don't want to see gruesome televised murders. We should exclude gruesome televised murders because *gasp* you can't just assume that any X and any Y are equivalent! :rolleyes:

Male patrons of strip clubs want to see naked females, and do not want to see naked males. Therefore, male strippers should be excluded from that venue. Patrons of Chippendales want to see naked men writhe around, not naked women. Therefore naked women should be excluded.
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to get to the nub of your argument. You seem to be saying that basically 'discrimination is OK if its commercially advantageous' but I think when i distill it like that you might well disagree. So I'd love to know what I am missing.

One difference we need to bear in mind is that 'being hot/ugly' is not a protected characteristic anyway. So legally it should be fine to do that.

Other things are protected though. If the WWE says 'people don't wanna buy tickets to watch two gay guys in tight outfits fondle each other' is it OK for the WWE to exclude gay wrestlers in your opinion? Is it only the commercial aspects that matter or is there also a social responsibility on sport not to be discriminatory?
 
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...

Do you think that strip clubs targeting a male clientele should be forced to hire gay male strippers in the name of equality?

Do you think that male sex-workers who exclusively service female clients should be obligated to allow themselves to be penetrated by males in the name of equality?

Why on earth do you think it's even remotely acceptable to force a woman by law to handle someone's penis and scrotum?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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?
Click to expand...

I do indeed think that's the nub of the issue.


You start with a premise that discrimination is bad. I don't think that's true at all. Nature discriminates. Discrimination is not inherently evil.

I have a feeling that will raise a "why not?" question. Or a whole bunch of other questions, but I think that is shifting the burden of proof. I want to do something (i.e. to discriminate.) If you want to pass laws against me doing that thing, (i.e. discriminating), I think it is on you to prove why that discrimination ought not be allowed.

When it comes to discriminating between trans-girls and biological girls, I'm perfectly willing to defend that discrimination, and have done so throughout these threads, and I have no intention of stopping.

If you want me to explain why discrimination based on skin color or ancestry is almost always bad, I could do that, too, but this isn't really the thread for it.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Is that a yes or a no? Or an attempt to be 'clever' and avoid the question?
Click to expand...

That is as a direct answer as I can give. If my occupation was dealing with female bodies there is no way in a million years I would expect to have to deal with a male one because men and women are different.
 
Emily's Cat said:
That's WHY we exclude most transwomen from competing against females. Meadmaker outlined it pretty clearly.
Click to expand...

Who's we?

Seems that many governing bodies allow transwomen to compete in women's sports. The NCAA and the IOC both allow trans women to compete in women's sports after meeting some minimum of hormone treatment.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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?
Click to expand...

:boggled: Seriously, at this point I think you're trolling. I mean, you're actually taking the position that pensions should be available to anyone who "self-identifies" as 65, even if they're chronologically 22.

At this point, objective reality has left the solar system folks.
 
The entire premise that because a person interacts with female genitals in their business, they should also be obligated by law to interact with male genitals in their business as well is mind boggling.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:boggled: Seriously, at this point I think you're trolling. I mean, you're actually taking the position that pensions should be available to anyone who "self-identifies" as 65, even if they're chronologically 22.

At this point, objective reality has left the solar system folks.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the position is not about 22 year olds collecting pensions. The position is about what evidence is used to define age and gender and why it is okay to self identify in one instance but not the other.

The result of self identification for each is that 22 year olds would be able to collect a pension , which you see as absurd and men being able to compete unfairly against women, (removed because I reread your post and you were not okay with it. Sorry about that.)

My position is that both are absurd for the exact same reason.
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Troubling and worrisome that discrimination being OK is not the default assumption?
Click to expand...

First off, discrimination as a category of action is not merely OK, it is unavoidable and in fact necessary. Only certain forms of discrimination are actually considered bad, but referring to only these as discrimination, ignoring all the necessary forms, is lazy thinking and leads to all sorts of mischief.

What exactly is it that troubles and worries you?
Click to expand...

That someone can force someone else to touch their genitals against their will. That's messed up.

Why doesn't that trouble 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'?
Click to expand...

Well, yes. That's one of the advantages of having specialties in medicine. If you don't want to touch balls, enter a specialty which doesn't require you to touch balls. Some branches of medicine require doctors to occassionally touch balls. Doctors entering into those branch may be required to touch balls. Doctors who are not in those branches should not be required to touch balls. So for example, Yanniv should not be entitled to demand that a gynecologist examine his lady balls.
 
Emily's Cat said:
My position is also that they're both absurd - for the reason of objective reality being a thing that exists independent of any person's internal mental state or beliefs.
Click to expand...

That's the underlying issue though - gender identity ideology is built on postmodern rejection of objective reality. Therefore one can only repeatedly demand that others validate one's own constructed reality, and engage in constant struggle to control the narrative, lest others create an alternative reality with their speech.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Who's we?

Seems that many governing bodies allow transwomen to compete in women's sports. The NCAA and the IOC both allow trans women to compete in women's sports after meeting some minimum of hormone treatment.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? You clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to transwomen participating in women’s sport, so please stop. It is hardly minimum, which is why so many TRAs are outraged about the IOC and are demanding participation based on self identification only.
 
lionking said:
Are you serious? You clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to transwomen participating in women’s sport, so please stop. It is hardly minimum, which is why so many TRAs are outraged about the IOC and are demanding participation based on self identification only.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. "Minimum" wasn't meant as a judgement statement. Both of these orgs require a minimum amount of time on HRT before trans women athletes can compete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom