Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SuburbanTurkey said:
Not true, transphobia is so potent that it is already the law in Florida that a medical exam can be demanded for student athletes:
Click to expand...
"Transphobia".

It's reasonable to not want women to compete in sports with men, nor vice-versa.

You'd think the issue would never come up, since sports are segregated by sex, and trans is a gender thing not a sex thing. But apparently trans-activism is so potent (and so misguided) that Florida has actually had to go so far as to pass a law reinforcing sex segregation in sports.

You can call this "transphobia" if you want, but if you think sports should be segregated by sex, that just makes you a transphobe too.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Using those terms to describe a person is an additional adjective that doesn't in any way reduce their implicit humanity, it doesn't reduce their completeness as a person but rather expands their essential humanity.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it takes anything away from someone's humanity to point out that they also [fill in the blank]; my baseline assumption is that they are complete people who also do the one thing we're talking about.

  • Francophones are complete people who happen to speak French.
  • Brunettes are complete people who happen to grow a certain color of hair on their heads.
  • Supertasters are complete people who happen to taste things which others usually miss.
Mentioning that someone grows brown hair or speaks French tells you rather little about them as a person, but we assume they are complete people nonetheless. Why would we do otherwise with bodily functions aside from sense of taste? It seems to me that you're stretching to attribute malicious intent to dehumanize in this one specific case.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
That goes against what I found please show that is the case and the European Society of Endocrinology was wrong.

"Levels in healthy men are in the range 7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L and 0 to 1.7 nmol/L in healthy women, so for fairness and considering the over-representation of women with naturally higher levels in sport, the IAAF recently formulated new regulations and defined a maximum testosterone level of 5.0 nmol/L for eligibility in the female classification of middle distance track disciplines. The Court of Arbitration for Sport approved the IAAF's regulations on 1 May 2019. "

https://www.ese-hormones.org/media/1882/femaleathletes_hirschberg_pr_final.pdf

Nothing about that level needs to be caused by a specific list of causes and if the level is caused by other ones it gets a pass. If that is truly the case please show me the regulation, that levels greater than 5.0 nmol/L are allowed provided one does not have a DSD.
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, PCOS, adrenal gland cancers, and ovarian cancers are the only causes of elevated testosterone in females.
 
d4m10n said:
Mentioning that someone grows brown hair or speaks French tells you rather little about them as a person, but we assume they are complete people nonetheless. Why would we do otherwise with bodily functions aside from sense of taste? It seems to me that you're stretching to attribute malicious intent to dehumanize in this one specific case.
Click to expand...

Call it “taste” if you like, it remains true that it’s insulting. I’m not sure why that’s hard to grasp, nor do I understand why we shouldn’t accommodate that “taste”.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Like finding out someone is jewish or black.
Click to expand...

:confused: A person with a vagina who is attracted to female people is no longer attracted to a person who looked like they were female, but turned out to have a penis is *exactly* the same as racism.

Those bigoted lesbians refusing to let penises into them. Maybe they need therapy to unlearn their genital preferences?
 
One of the things that drives me nuts about the sports conversation is that it always goes the same. Apparently, because there are people with DSDs, we have to let Terry Miller compete as a girl.

I don't get the connection. We know that the objection is about people whose biological sex is well known, and doesn't match the gender. AIS has nothing to do with the all time record holder for the 200 meter run in Conneticutt.

As for people who actually have DSDs, I'll accept the wisdom of people who run sports leagues as to whether someone with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome ought to be allowed to compete as a girl, and the answer might be different for high school and college and the Olympics and the professional leagues. I don't know, and will accept someone else's judgement on the case with DSDs.


Now, about those genital examinations. SuburbanTurkey even quoted the law that said a routine physical exam can be used to verify sex. Every Florida kid is already required to have a routine physical exam in order to participate. There's really no issue. It is already done, for every student athlete.

What this law means is that the student could conceivably be required to produce that certificate, which the coach will already have.

Actually walking through a scenario where that certificate be demanded would show how incredibly rare that demand would be, but if it were demanded, it would simply be pulling the report out of the file. I'm not going to walk through it, because no one is actually interested. ST et. al. just want to create some fictitious nightmare scenario.

The bottom line is that genitals are already examined and they will continue to be examined, which is why kids who take off their clothes are said to be "playing doctor". That's what doctors do.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
The "closet" was about avoiding the many negative social and legal implications of being an out gay person. People lost their careers, their families, were hounded by law enforcement, and were pariahs to their communities if they weren't careful about concealing their homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Huh. Sounds a lot like females in the current period who don't accept that males are females and feel that sex is relevant and important. They also lose their careers, and are hounded by law enforcement, and find their communities turning on them and threatening them with physical violence.

Given your view of the treatment of gay people in the past, I'd think you'd show more opposition to the same thing happening to females today.
 
Ziggurat said:
Call it “taste” if you like, it remains true that it’s insulting.
Click to expand...
If that is true, it is true because of prior usage and because the writers intended it to be taken as an insult. That's how language works, words gain meaning from how they are used.

I believe "TERF" is a slur b/c that's how it's generally used, to put people down and shut them up. I don't believe "menstruator" has a similar history, or that advertising agencies seek to insult potential customers.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Yet you couldn't tell. Then it is suddenly all that matters.

See I am dating a trans woman and sure I wasn't sure how I would react when I got to her genitals, but I also was not afraid to call that out as an issue with me and internalized transphobia in me rather that some fault in her.
Click to expand...

Do you genuinely think that there's something wrong with you that you're not attracted to penises? You think that's bigotry on your part?

That also implies that anyone who is same sex attracted is a bigot if they don't accept people of the opposite sex as partners. Which further implies that homosexual people need some therapy to convert them out of their genital preferences.

I mean, good on you for being open minded with respect to who you like... but I'm not a fan of this 'attracted to gender stereotypes or your an evil bigot' mindset.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:boggled: The athletic differences between males and females isn't exactly a 'freak coincidence of biology'.
Click to expand...

I think what ST is saying is that a guy like Michael Phelps can do what he does not just because he works hard, but because he was born with lucky genes which were a freak coincidence of biology.

And that's true.


And then somehow that means that biological males should be allowed to compete as girls in high school. The connection is a bit fuzzy to me. Maybe he can explain it better.
 
Cain said:
This goes back to the BBC article where lesbians claim they were pressured into sex with trans women for fear of being "transphobic" (and "genital fetishists" and "perverts"). Attraction triggers are amoral. Maybe in an ideal world, people would be more turned on by virtuous character traits rather than body shape, but it's not so easy to transcend to the beast within.
Click to expand...

I don't know why that would be an ideal world? Exceptions exist, but we're sexually dimorphic because that's how reproduction works. As long as we remain a species, the vast majority of humans are going to have the desire to continue their gene lines. And that rather strongly implies that the vast majority will be sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

That's how sex... you know... works.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Because you clearly lust after a guy when you find out he is trans.

I get it trans people are icky and you refuse to find them attractive and it is their fault if you did momentarily.
Click to expand...

There's no 'fault' involved.

Imagine that you meet someone as a pen-pal, and have never seen them in real life. You write to them over a long time, and you get to know them really well. Maybe you even develop an attraction to the mental image you've built of them. Then you meet them in real life, and it turns out that the person you had imagined to be a tall svelte female is actually a short rotund bald male.

Is you lack of sexual attraction to them anybody's fault? What you thought they were and what they actually are is different. Nobody is at fault for that, it simply didn't work out.

Sometimes it does work out. Sometimes the emotional bond overrides the sexual prompts. That's great when it happens, but it's irrational and downright absurd to insist that it *should* be the norm. And it's insulting and offensive to imply that anyone who doesn't react the same way as you is a bad person because of it.
 
Meadmaker said:
For what it's worth, my limited knowledge of AIS is that they would be subject to the testesterone cap, because they are XY, and have testes. I think.

I'm ok with that.
Click to expand...

Someone with CAIS would fall well below the testosterone cap.

My understanding is that people with CAIS, despite having XY chromosomes, are considered female. Their bodies are arranged around the production of ova, even though they don't successfully produce ova. A person with CAIS has female reproductive tracts, but never develop ova during gestation.

PAIS, I'm not so certain.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But this isn't about what they find attractive, this is finding someone attractive right up until you find out they are trans. That shows what the bias is.
Click to expand...

You're right. It shows that for the vast majority of people - even homosexual people - attraction is about SEX not about gender presentation.

Because, and I know this is a mind-blower... sex is about SEX.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The revisionism of these statements is truly astounding. I've heard some whoppers in my time, but this actually knocks me on my ass.

Are we just supposed to pretend that, in the prior era, people getting outed to our broadly homophobic society was not, more often than not, an absolute disaster for them? People lost jobs, were disowned from their families and friends, accused of being sexual predators, prosecuted for criminal offenses, and were generally pushed to the fringes of society.

But yeah, everybody knew and it was no big deal /s
Click to expand...

You really ought to bother to read what I write, instead of making it up as you go along.

Particularly, pay attention to the last bit, and consider that "surprise" and "approve" are not the same. Very few people are surprised when a gay person comes out... but there were (and are still) people who disapproved. And that is awful. Which I also said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom