• 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.
qayak said:
Not much of a competition. More like a fun swim. Do they all get a participation award and a chance at winning some fun prizes?
Click to expand...

:)

Yeah, I just meant that it was logical, in the sense of coherent, and not self contradictory. In terms of what I think the policy ought to be does not mean I don't think the fact that Lia Thomas sometimes loses does not in any way affect the fact that she shouldn't be racing in the women's division.
 
Well my last post had some interesting grammar, but you can probably figure out what I meant anyway. Don't try to actually parse it completely though. Your head might explode.
 
Meadmaker said:
I just meant that it was logical, in the sense of coherent, and not self contradictory.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If transgender swimmers ought to compete as the sex they want to be (as Lia Thomas does) then Iszac Henig ought to be competing against male swimmers.
 
Upchurch said:
If the definition of “woman” were just “a female human”, is that particularly useful? How female does a human need to be in order to be a woman?
Click to expand...

All the way female. It's an on-off switch. Any given human is either male or female. No human is both, and no human is neither.

There is no "how female" to be asked. It's like asking how negative a charge an electron needs to have in order to be considered an electron. It's an ignorant question.

Try this on for size: Who is *more female*, Buck Angel or Laverne Cox? There is exactly one right answer to this question... but it is completely different from asking which of those two people is *more feminine*.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
But the whole point is that animals aren’t always biologically one thing or the other. You were one of those that told me this was well covered material. Was that not true?
Click to expand...

All mammals are exclusively one or the other, never both, and never neither. This is also true for the overwhelming majority of vertebrates; a small number of vertebrates have the ability to change their reproductive anatomy under certain conditions, so there may be a small amount of time during which they are "both" sexes, although they are infertile during that transitionary period. None of those that can change sex, however, are mammals. And none of those vertebrates include more than two sexes.

You have to go all the way to invertebrates before you start seeing species that have more than two sexes.

So when we're talking about animals on the planet earth that are relevant to a discussion of biological sex in humans... There are two, and only two sexes. There is no third sex, there is no in between sex.

We have eggs, we have sperm, we do not have spergs.
 
Upchurch said:
But that’s not always true, though, is it?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is true. If a fetus develops ova, it is unquestionably female, even it it has a disorder of sexual development and develops ambiguous appearing genitalia. The presence of ova is a sufficient criteria for the class of female. No males have ova.

It is not necessarily a necessary criteria. A fetus may develop without ova but still be considered female if their reproductive anatomy is organized around the production of ova.

Similarly, the presence of sperm is a sufficient criteria for the class of male, although it is not a necessary criteria thereof.

If a human produces, previously produced, or in the future is expected to produce, or has the anatomy evolved to produce ova, then it is female... even if no ova are actually ever produced. If a human produces, previously produced, or in the future is expected to produce, or has the anatomy evolved to produce sperm, then it is male... even if no sperm are ever actually produced.
 
theprestige said:
With very rare exceptions, completely outside the scope of the trans-inclusion debate, humans are indeed biologically one thing or the other. This thread would be very different, and a lot shorter, if we were actually discussing intersex rights and inclusion. But we're not.
Click to expand...

Even with the consideration of disorders of sexual development, which are completely irrelevant to this discussion, humans are only one or the other. DSDs are sex-specific disorders.
 
Meadmaker said:
Words. Definitions.

Being born with ova makes you.....born with ova. Using historically used definitions of words, it also makes you female, and yes that is always true in humans.

But we could redefine the word "female" to mean something else, but now we need a new word to describe people born with ova, and people who have neither ova nor sperm, but have substantial physiological similarity to the typical form of someone with ova.

We used to call those people "women", and then we started with "female", and biologists probably have some longer word, and it goes on an on.
Click to expand...

And of course people who lack that for what ever reason are not women or female. Of course then you are tying competing in sports to fertility, and coming back to things like as a Eunuch should Lance Armstrong have competed as if he was still a man?
 
qayak said:
If a trans-woman ever closes in on the men's mile record, I will be in the crowd cheering them on. If they ever compete for Canada in their own category, I will cheer them on. But I am not interested in watching them beat a record that was set by a man 100 years ago. I am interested in watching a woman do it.
Click to expand...

Sure, let's make this all about you. :p
 
angrysoba said:
Okay, I accept that you care about women's sports, and what's more, I have said that I think transgender women competing in women's sports are unfair for women especially in strength sports (in some sports there may not be a meaningful difference).

Again, the problem is how the sports are governed and it doesn't excuse transphobic insults or bullying.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
Anything to make it not about women, right? There's that misogynistic trans-activism again.
Click to expand...

Call me a misogynist if you like, IDGAF if you do. I have already stated what I think about trans-women competing in sports. I generally think it is unfair, although it may come down to the specific sports and how they are governed.

Of course, while you are condemning misogyny, which I applaud, do I get to call you transphobic? I think you would disagree with me calling you that, but if so maybe try not to reflexively grab for labels like “misogynist”.
 
angrysoba said:
Call me a misogynist if you like, IDGAF if you do. I have already stated what I think about trans-women competing in sports. I generally think it is unfair, although it may come down to the specific sports and how they are governed.

Of course, while you are condemning misogyny, which I applaud, do I get to call you transphobic? I think you would disagree with me calling you that, but if so maybe try not to reflexively grab for labels like “misogynist”.
Click to expand...

I apply the label of misogyny thoughtfully and intentionally. I do not say you are misogynist. Rather, I say that the general thrust of trans-activism today is objectively misogynist in application and in effect. If you are concerned about being associated with misogynistic policies and practices, then you should think twice about being associated with trans-activism in its current form.
 
Just cuz a dog feels like a pig, acts like a pig, eats like a pig, doesn't make him a pig.

he is still a dog
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom