• 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.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Earthborn said:
Richard Dawkins identifies as a cultural Christian.
Click to expand...
I do not respect his self-identification as a Christian, since he's heaped scorn on the central ideas of Christianity.

ETA: Perhaps "cultural" serves as a partial negation here, I'd need to see the original phrase in context.
 
Last edited:
Earthborn said:
No matter what the rules are on who is allowed to participate in a sports competition, there will always be participants who worked hard and who may lose out on a reward because other people may have an advantage over them. Nothing in the rules defined by sports organisations says that anyone "deserves" a reward after hard work. All this proves is that turning games into winner-takes-all competitions sucks the fun out of the fun and games.
Click to expand...

Maybe for you. Some of us like it that way.

It goes to the oft observed phenomenon in this subject that those who don't care about the effect on women's sports, generally don't care about sports at all.

ETA: And it isn't "winner take all", but it most definitely is first place is better than second, and so on down the line, including sometimes very steep cutoffs at just one place, e.g., if there are 8 spots in the final heat, 9th place is a lot worse than 8th. In the Olympics, and a whole lot of other competitions, 4th place is a lot worse than 3rd.
 
Last edited:
Today in media from the Cursed Isle:

Woman tries to drum up gender panic after inexplicably deciding to disrobe in a non-private place and then getting mad that men are nearby:

After a while I make my way back to the changing rooms. Now I am really short of time and all the booths are full. So in haste I find a discreet spot in the communal area where I whip off my top. I think nothing of doing so, after all I am in a rush and I am in a safe space.

Or so I thought.

Again, I hear two male voices. I spin around to find the men from earlier still in the changing room, emerging from their respective booths and talking to one another other right over my head as if I am invisible. But I don't feel invisible. I feel exposed in my bra.
Click to expand...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10275757/CHARLOTTE-GRIFFITHS-facing-dilemma.html
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Today in media from the Cursed Isle:

Woman tries to drum up gender panic after inexplicably deciding to disrobe in a non-private place and then getting mad that men are nearby:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10275757/CHARLOTTE-GRIFFITHS-facing-dilemma.html
Click to expand...

You describe it as non-private, which is true in a sense, but you fail to mention that it is still nominally sex segregated. Expecting a nominally sex-segregated area to actually BE sex segregated is not exactly unreasonable. And the store's policy, as explained, really makes no sense. They have segregated in not by the sex or even the gender of the person trying on the clothes, but by the gender of the clothes themselves. That's ******* stupid, and serves no purpose.
 
TomB said:
And yet, in many ways, both sides consider the term "woman" as an identity. After all, you pulled the words "adult human female" from one definition of woman.

I said many threads back that "woman" appears to be a magic word. It carries significance to both sides of this debate.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your take on this. For female people, it's not an identity, it's a reality. For those of us feminists who have been fighting to eradicate regressive stereotypes, and allow all people to present themselves how they like without abuse or censure, and who believe that wearing a dress makes one no less of a man than wearing steel-toed boots... Seeing all of that effort go down the drain and those stereotypes being held up as a benchmark for one's entry to "woman" or "man" is incredibly disheartening.

I AM a woman, it's not an identity. It's not something that I think about myself, it's objective reality. I am a female human being. I also, however, completely reject gender as a meaningless and harmful concept altogether. I have no gender under the current definition of that term. None at all.

With respect to the rest of your post, no we're not politicians and policy makers. But I am also not willing to cede this decision to people without voicing my opinion and my views on the topic. I'm not willing to hand over my rights for someone unaffected by their own policy to give away.

In order to arrive at a reasonable and fair level of accommodation, we must have discussion between the parties affected by it. I am part of that discussion.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's ******* stupid, and serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

The purpose was given right in the article. To not offend people. Except....it still offends people, but at least for the moment, it doesn't offend the people who would whine the loudest and boycott the store.

But other than that I completely agree, and really am not sure why SuburbanTurkey would think this kind of story would help out the TRA cause.
 
Olmstead said:
I have to ask, what's the point? If women could compete with men, they would, and there wouldn't be two categories. Why shouldn't transwomen simply compete against men?
Click to expand...

Competing against men wouldn't validate their identity as a woman. Only competing against women can do that.

Doesn't really matter that it is dramatically unfair to the women, it only matters that the identities of those transgender identified males are affirmed.

Yes, it's snarky, and no, it's not exactly my view. I'm just tired of these questions getting dodged and ignored or being responded to with "transwomen are WOMEN!!!1111!" instead of actual discussion. My actual view is a bit more nuanced and allows for reasonable guidelines and case-by-case exceptions.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Competing against men wouldn't validate their identity as a woman. Only competing against women can do that.
Click to expand...

After participating in these threads, I reached the conclusion that if they really wanted to affirm their identity, the best way to do it would be to dress like women and compete against men.



I haven't gotten much support for that view from the TRAs.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:rolleyes: Science is a mantra and is crap. Okay then.
Click to expand...


So why don't you refer to "pubescent egg-bearing Homo sapiens" then?

Normal people would just say "females". The "human" part is entirely obvious and is therefore a wholly unnecessary addition. And in fact, the "adult" part is irrelevant too, seeing as transgirls are just as much of a problem in your eyes as well.

So: "females" is all that's required when you're doing your whole "gender-critical" thing.

"Adult human females" is gender-critical mantra crap. Whether you realise that or not (and I rather suspect that you do).
 
Meadmaker said:
After participating in these threads, I reached the conclusion that if they really wanted to affirm their identity, the best way to do it would be to dress like women and compete against men.



I haven't gotten much support for that view from the TRAs.
Click to expand...


Wow. WOW.

Another person totally blows the "Oh yeah, I recognise and respect transgender identity as a valid condition" smokescreen briskly away.
 
LondonJohn said:
So why don't you refer to "pubescent egg-bearing Homo sapiens" then?

Normal people would just say "females". The "human" part is entirely obvious and is therefore a wholly unnecessary addition. And in fact, the "adult" part is irrelevant too, seeing as transgirls are just as much of a problem in your eyes as well.

So: "females" is all that's required when you're doing your whole "gender-critical" thing.

"Adult human females" is gender-critical mantra crap. Whether you realise that or not (and I rather suspect that you do).
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. A woman is an adult human female, a girl is a human female child, a definition of woman that includes non-women (girls) isn't useful and clearly doesn't explain the meaning of the word as it's generally used.

Adult human female just makes clear exactly which categories are contained in the word "woman". There's no agenda behind including "human" there, it's just an obvious part of the definition of the word. Your dog may be an adult female, but it isn't a woman, and any definition of the word should be able to make that distinction.
 
LondonJohn said:
Wow. WOW.

Another person totally blows the "Oh yeah, I recognise and respect transgender identity as a valid condition" smokescreen briskly away.
Click to expand...

Smokescreen? What smokescreen?

Care to engage?


No? Just snipe from the sidelines?

What would the scientific answer be? Remember that question? What does the science say about where transwomen should compete?


Not exactly expecting an answer, because you don't do that sort of thing, but if you care to leave your comfort zone, give it a shot.
 
d4m10n said:
Has anyone said what exactly constitutes an invalid condition?
Click to expand...

Valid: Psychology/psychiatry shouldn't attempt to remove it.

Invalid: Psychology/psychiatry should attempt to remove it.

It's also a completely subjective judgement.
 
Olmstead said:
Valid: Psychology/psychiatry shouldn't attempt to remove it.

Invalid: Psychology/psychiatry should attempt to remove it.

It's also a completely subjective judgement.
Click to expand...

I dunno. Paranoid schizophrenia is a valid lived condition. It doesn't map to reality, but the goal is to treat it and make accommodations for those who suffer from it, not remove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom