• 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.
In all seriousness, though, I think it is sports where there will really be the clash on self ID and trans rights. People would just prefer not to think about all the sexual issues, and people don't ever want to be seen as the "bad guys" who are denying someone something, so they'll be timid about making a fuss over bathrooms.

But sports and self identified, untransitioned (or barely transitioned) transwomen? It's visible, it's not sexual, and it's bloody obvious that something is wrong. As more and more Lia Thomases finish with 38 second leads, and people start noticing and saying, "There's something a bit fishy here....." a lot of people with a lot of sympathy toward transpeople will end up saying, "But you can take this sort of thing too far."
 
Meadmaker said:
In all seriousness, though, I think it is sports where there will really be the clash on self ID and trans rights. People would just prefer not to think about all the sexual issues, and people don't ever want to be seen as the "bad guys" who are denying someone something, so they'll be timid about making a fuss over bathrooms.

But sports and self identified, untransitioned (or barely transitioned) transwomen? It's visible, it's not sexual, and it's bloody obvious that something is wrong. As more and more Lia Thomases finish with 38 second leads, and people start noticing and saying, "There's something a bit fishy here....." a lot of people with a lot of sympathy toward transpeople will end up saying, "But you can take this sort of thing too far."
Click to expand...

It depends on how you see. Some might see sports as a rare exemption to a broader rule that works, others might see it as a totalizing repudiation of the entire idea of trans inclusion.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It depends on how you see. Some might see sports as a rare exemption to a broader rule that works, others might see it as a totalizing repudiation of the entire idea of trans inclusion.
Click to expand...

True. It's hard to see how those attitudes will evolve.
 
Meadmaker said:
The idea that testing, or lack thereof, drove the question of trans-inclusion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can explain why you think those test were instituted or how you think abolishing them would not eventually raise to the question of whether or not transwomen would be allowed to compete in women's sports.

As for the rest, it jsut affirms that you aren't really interested in sports.
Click to expand...
At least I care about the stuff women athletes had to endure just to keep sports sex segregated.

Meadmaker said:
If you care about women's sports, it's blindingly obvious how and why to define those terms in the ways they are used consistently in sports.
Click to expand...
The fact that the Olympics has redefined those terms more than once and not used them consistently suggest that perhaps it isn't as blindingly obvious -- at leat not to one of the world's most influential sports organisations. If you think you can do better, give them a call.

Emily's Cat said:
It's another thing altogether to ignore the actual real-world implications of those concept and pretend that your "make everything equal" does anything other than enforce inequality.
Click to expand...
At least I am not ignoring the real-world implications to women of trying to keep sports segregated. They were the ones subjected to tests for their "certificate of feminity" to prove they are not too good, while men are allowed every genetic advantage without any accusations of having an unfair advantage over competitors.

Can you make a coherent argument for why we should allow sports (or anything else) to be separated on the basis of age?
Click to expand...
I think so. Age is easier to define and check and for Little League the commercial and political incentives are not so great that many people worry about very small and undeveloped 30 year olds having an unfair advantage should they be allowed to play anyway.
 
Earthborn said:
Perhaps you can explain why you think those test were instituted or how you think abolishing them would not eventually raise to the question of whether or not transwomen would be allowed to compete in women's sports.

At least I care about the stuff women athletes had to endure just to keep sports sex segregated.

The fact that the Olympics has redefined those terms more than once and not used them consistently suggest that perhaps it isn't as blindingly obvious -- at leat not to one of the world's most influential sports organisations. If you think you can do better, give them a call.

At least I am not ignoring the real-world implications to women of trying to keep sports segregated. They were the ones subjected to tests for their "certificate of feminity" to prove they are not too good, while men are allowed every genetic advantage without any accusations of having an unfair advantage over competitors.

I think so. Age is easier to define and check and for Little League the commercial and political incentives are not so great that many people worry about very small and undeveloped 30 year olds having an unfair advantage should they be allowed to play anyway.
Click to expand...

Please, quote the female athletes who have complained about the "stuff" they had to "endure just to keep sports sex segregated", and provide examples of female athletes who have been excluded due to being "too good".
 
Earthborn said:
Perhaps you can explain why you think those test were instituted or how you think abolishing them would not eventually raise to the question of whether or not transwomen would be allowed to compete in women's sports.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps the whole question is just a diversion.

The question is whether males should be allowed to compete as women. Asking about the history of testing in the Olympics really isn't relevant to that question. At any rate, today, the testing that would be required to exclude males, whether all males, some males, or whatever criteria the variaous federations try to impose, would not be invasive or demeaning, so we can really just ignore the question of testing altogether. It's just not important.

At least I care about the stuff women athletes had to endure just to keep sports sex segregated.
Click to expand...

Your concern is touching, although I question the depth of sincerity. At any rate, whatever happened in the past is of little interest to what we do today.

The fact that the Olympics has redefined those terms more than once and not used them consistently suggest that perhaps it isn't as blindingly obvious -- at leat not to one of the world's most influential sports organisations. If you think you can do better, give them a call.
Click to expand...

Lots of people with more expertise have already given them calls, resulting in changes. That will continue. People really, really, want to be seen as all modern and tolerant and what have you, and there is room around the edges for some debate, but Terry Miller and Lia Thomas shouldn't be racing against girls, and their performances show it, and everyone can see it, and what sort of testing was done during the Cold War dpesn't really have anything to do with it.
At least I am not ignoring the real-world implications to women of trying to keep sports segregated.
Click to expand...

I think you are. The primary real world implication to women of trying to keep sports segregated was that sports stayed (mostly) segregated. Of all the impacts to women, that was the most important. You are ignoring that and trying to focus attention on one rather small aspect of the situations.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
TERF is also trending alongside Rowling's melodramatic Orwell post.
Click to expand...
This observation has exactly nothing to do with the substantive question of whether sex crime perps should be recorded according to their sex or their gender in official databases. If I was just a bit more cynical, I'd say you're deliberately distracting us from the issue by focusing on the messenger.
 
d4m10n said:
This observation has exactly nothing to do with the substantive question of whether sex crime perps should be recorded according to their sex or their gender in official databases. If I was just a bit more cynical, I'd say you're deliberately distracting us from the issue by focusing on the messenger.
Click to expand...

It's being charitable calling Rowling's post "substantive".

She's poked her head outside her castle to ****-post more TERF nonsense. I guess we'll hear from her again in 6 months or so.
 
theprestige said:
The stupidest possible compromise. The way things are going, this category will be problematic and obsolete within the next two years. Might as well just go straight to "best actor" [a gender-neutral term].
Click to expand...

Nah, some of those might be females, and we wouldn't want to imply personhood and agency to *them*. Better rename it "Best Acting Body"
 
Earthborn said:
At least I am not ignoring the real-world implications to women of trying to keep sports segregated.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Yes, the real world implication of females trying to keep female sports separate from male sports is that FEMALES GET TO COMPETE. The real world implication is that SOME MALES DON'T GET TO COMPETE AGAINST FEMALES FOR EASY WINS.

Honestly, how dare those uppity females want to compete in sports, don't they know that's not a suitable pursuit for a nice, sweet, quiet, gentle little helpless damsel?
 
theprestige said:
The stupidest possible compromise. The way things are going, this category will be problematic and obsolete within the next two years. Might as well just go straight to "best actor" [a gender-neutral term].
Click to expand...

It's kind of a strange remnant of a previous time, sex specific acting awards. Men and women have no innate differences when it comes to acting ability.

I can see why they don't want to dump them, best "actor/actress" awards are probably the most interesting for the public, so having twice as many winners is probably a bonus.
 
Earthborn said:
I think so. Age is easier to define and check and for Little League the commercial and political incentives are not so great that many people worry about very small and undeveloped 30 year olds having an unfair advantage should they be allowed to play anyway.
Click to expand...

Age is better defined than sex? Are you actually claiming that the thing that is literally a spectrum without clear boundaries is better defined that the thing that is literally binary with clear separation?

But hey, I'll give you credit for acknowledging that males competing in female sports have a political incentive, I guess.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
...TERF nonsense.
Click to expand...

TERF Nonsense: Males with penises who commit sex crimes should be recorded as males regardless of their personal identity. Females are massively disproportionately victimize by male offenders, and this is an important element of trying to combat Violence Against Females across the globe.

Gender-Progressive Sense: Males with penises who commit sex crimes should be recorded however they wish to be recorded, as their gender identity is of supreme importance and it's unfair to those sex criminals to misgender them. Sure, this will make it impossible to track and analyze sexual crimes, which massively disproportionally victimize females at present... but who cares? Violence Against Females is an old, outdated concern. Besides, once there are enough males with penises recorded as "women" when they commit violent and sexual crimes, you'll see that the rates of criminal activity is the same for 'men' and 'women', so there won't be a problem with Violence Against Females any longer!
 
Emily's Cat said:
TERF Nonsense: Males with penises who commit sex crimes should be recorded as males regardless of their personal identity. Females are massively disproportionately victimize by male offenders, and this is an important element of trying to combat Violence Against Females across the globe.

Gender-Progressive Sense: Males with penises who commit sex crimes should be recorded however they wish to be recorded, as their gender identity is of supreme importance and it's unfair to those sex criminals to misgender them. Sure, this will make it impossible to track and analyze sexual crimes, which massively disproportionally victimize females at present... but who cares? Violence Against Females is an old, outdated concern. Besides, once there are enough males with penises recorded as "women" when they commit violent and sexual crimes, you'll see that the rates of criminal activity is the same for 'men' and 'women', so there won't be a problem with Violence Against Females any longer!
Click to expand...

It's a real shame the UK has a system where people's official gender recognition is not a reliable reflection of people's identity. Perhaps they should fix this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom