Again, they're not labels, they're descriptive terms, as are your examples. I agree that bisexuality can be too vague a term to describe the experience of many people. Do you agree that you are polysexual because of who you are attracted to, not because you identify as polysexual?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)
- Thread starter Elaedith
- Start date
- Status
Again, they're not labels, they're descriptive terms, as are your examples. I agree that bisexuality can be too vague a term to describe the experience of many people. Do you agree that you are polysexual because of who you are attracted to, not because you identify as polysexual?
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 8,382
No, women's sports as you want to keep them will cease to exist.
Personally, I see sports going completely gender neutral in the future, so you think it's bad for you now? Wait until non-binary and genderfluid people start competing more.
I don't know why you think it's "bad for me now," as I'm not an athlete. It's bad for women athletes.
Sports already are neutral, by the way. Women's leagues weren't created because men just didn't want to compete against women, they were created so women would have a level playing field of their own.
Since trans athletes seem to care about sports infinitely more than you, I'd rather hear from them on the matter. I doubt that any athlete would like your "tear it all down" approach, as it's based in fantasyland.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
How much of Dr. Stock's body of work did you read before coming to this conclusion?
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What's the difference between pansexual and omnisexual?
Are we getting to the point where the terms for sexual attraction are just as undefined and useless as the terms for gender identity?
Do I really need to start identifying myself as "cismale bearsexual"? Meaning I'm a male who's sexually attracted to other males who are relatively large and hirsute? Isn't that already adequately covered by "homosexual" in most circumstances? It's not like the ladies hitting on me at the bar need to know that not only am I gay, but I'm also trying to filter out otters and twinks.
Boudicca90
Muse
Labels are descriptive terms.
From M-W: Label - 2: a word or phrase that describes or identifies something or someone
And yes, I'm polysexual based on my attraction, and that label best fits the nature of my attraction.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What's the difference between polysexual and omnisexual?
Boudicca90
Muse
The abstract of her paper was enough. I could see her agenda just from that.
Boudicca90
Muse
Look it up yourself. I'm not doing your homework for you.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,951
Ok. I've never heard of either, so I'll continue to not comment on that one.
Finally!
At long last you've outed your stance as pure misogyny. The only losers would be women.
Thankfully, most sporting bodies already know this and act according to common decency instead of some extreme trans wish.
Parlay that!
Keep women born as women under the thumb. A million years of being under the control of males, and the next million under the control of people who are biologically males but deny it.
You're really good at this!
Personally, I see sports going completely gender neutral in the future,...]QUOTE]
Thankfully, your prediction is less likely to be realised than Nostadamus'.
... so you think it's bad for you now? Wait until non-binary and genderfluid people start competing more.
Too late. we've been there and done that.
The Women's 800m at Rio was the last shot in that war, when Caster Semenya and two other intersex athletes got all three medals. This year, they went home empty-handed and women got the medals.
Well, the way you were using label seemed to focus on the restrictiveness of it, when all it does is try to describe human behaviour.
But you do agree that it doesn't matter what sexuality someone identifies as, all that matters is what sexuality someone is. You just don't think that the traditional terms describe all sexualities adequately.
Hence, no one identifies as having a certain sexuality. They simply have a certain sexuality, and when convenient they use the term that best fits theirs, if it exists.
Boudicca90
Muse
Wrong. A person can have an attraction that fits more than one label and therefore chooses the one, or ones, that fit them best.
You clearly have no knowledge about the LGBTQ+ community.
That just means that the labels aren't adequate, which is why some people need to mix and match. How is this about identification? It's still all about personal experience, the only problem is that some don't fit the labels that exist.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
You've read one abstract of one paper and now you feel comfortable saying that she shouldn't get to do philosophy for a living anymore?
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
You've read one abstract of one paper and now you feel comfortable saying that she shouldn't get to do philosophy for a living anymore?
At least Boudica90 seems to have gotten one thing right. I think Dr. Stock really is a TERF.
(Used with it's actual meaning, TERF isn't really an insult.)
Boudicca90
Muse
Identification is based on personal experience. A person identifies with the label that best fits their personal experience.
I had plenty of people tell me I wasn't really gay back when I presented as male simply because I didn't fit a lot of the stereotypes. I was 'straight-acting', a term I despise. But I still had an undeniable attraction to men.
How other people saw me wasn't nearly as important as how I saw myself. Which is the whole point here.
Boudicca90
Muse
You've read one abstract of one paper and now you feel comfortable saying that she shouldn't get to do philosophy for a living anymore?
If her 'conclusions' do nothing but harm trans people (trans women in particular)? Absolutely.
I would have the same opinion if a researcher wanted to bring 'scientific racism' or other similarly harmful theories back.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,221
If it goes gender neutral, then transwomen will be competing against cismen, with ciswomen nowhere in sight because they won't be competitive.
So why is it a problem if transwomen just compete against cismen now?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,221
The primary problem with 'scientific racism' is not that it's harmful to any particular group, but that it's factually wrong. I find it telling that you aren't objecting on that basis, though.
But people don't identify as something, they ARE something. I don't identify as heterosexual, I simply am the sexuality that I am. I am attracted to women. Maybe a device of some sort could discover that I am also attracted to some specific subset of men, and the strict definition of heterosexual might not fit me in this case while bisexual would be to vague, but at no point does identification enter into it. It's just a failure of the language that we use to adequately describe my personal circumstances, and there is unlikely to be a reason to use a more specific term in my case.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
- Status