• 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.

Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
mumblethrax said:
No, we can't. The Supreme Court spent more time debating what exactly "because of" means than what "sex" does (because it's relatively uncontroversial).
Click to expand...

Exactly: it's uncontroversial, because there's no practical difference between the scientific definition and a common law definition.
 
Ziggurat said:
And? What's that got to do with the trans debate? Nothing. Nothing at all.

And I somehow doubt that stem cell to sperm cell process really will be of much use. In the 70's, some radical feminists got all excited at the prospect of egg merging to create an embryo without sperm. They actually believed that their male-free utopia could happen. 50 years on, it's still nowhere in sight. Far more is theoretically possible than is practically realized.
Click to expand...

They seem to be getting closer... although this was with no sperm OR egg.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/scien...pment, scientists,without using sperm or eggs.
 
Ziggurat said:
And? What's that got to do with the trans debate? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Click to expand...
That's. The. Point. Changing the common law definition of sex would have knock-on effect everywhere.

And I somehow doubt that stem cell to sperm cell process really will be of much use. In the 70's, some radical feminists got all excited at the prospect of egg merging to create an embryo without sperm. They actually believed that their male-free utopia could happen. 50 years on, it's still nowhere in sight. Far more is theoretically possible than is practically realized.
Click to expand...
It was a hypothetical. I'm not saying it's going to happen.
 
Ziggurat said:
Exactly: it's uncontroversial, because there's no practical difference between the scientific definition and a common law definition.
Click to expand...
No, it's uncontroversial because there's no controversy (as far as I know). You can just look up the common law definition. The scientific definition is irrelevant.
 
Chanakya said:
It isn't about whether they end up winning or not.

I think ---- I only think that, and am happy to be corrected if I'm wrong! ---- I was saying, I think transwomen are asking for inclusion into women's categories by arguing for inclusion, right? If that is an honest argument, then it ought to swing both ways: transmen also should then asking for inclusion, by competing with men.

If that latter is actually happening, then I'd say the argument for inclusion is at least one that is being made honestly. If that latter isn't actually happening, then clearly the inclusion argument is merely a sham, merely subterfuge, to somehow end up winning medals and prize money and what-have-you. Is all I was saying.
Click to expand...


Let's step half a step back and think about this, particularly the net impact.

First off, let's make the sweeping assumption (for argument's sake) that both transmen and transwomen are asking primarily for inclusion. Abd let's assume that they're asking in equal numbers.

What would be the outcome of that ask?

Remember that even if the argument is from the perspective of inclusion, sports are still competitive. Not everyone makes the cut. Among females in female sports, not every female on the planet is going to be good enough to qualify. Similarly, of all the males who might wish to compete against other males, not all of them will qualify.

So there's an athletic barrier to entry in both cases. Not all people who want to participate will be able to participate, because a minimum level of athletic competitiveness is required.

So let's extend that into your scenario. Let's say that transmen are asking to play on the male teams in the name of inclusion - they want to be included. Well, in most cases they're already not excluded. While we think of them as male and female leagues, in most cases they're actually Open and Female leagues. If a female is good enough to pass the bar and compete against males, in most cases, they will be allowed to do so.

The real question comes back to one of athletic ability. No matter how much a transman wants to compete on a male team in the name of inclusion, virtually none of them will be athletically capable of doing so. Because at the end of the day, they're still female. And females aren't competitive against males.

Going the other direction however, the transwomen get an easy in when they play the inclusion card. Because fundamentally, regardless of how they identify, they remain male. And males are more athletically capable than females.

So even if the main impetus is inclusion, we're still going to see males gaining access to female sports, but we will not see females gaining access to male sports.
 
Chanakya said:
Haha, this is completely hilarious! I tell you in so many words that I don’t think that letting loose transwomen onto women’s categories makes for a fair resolution of the nuanced question of fairness in sports; and you end up telling me, with a straight face, that you “think” I’m doing this, that and the other to “wedge in some idea of transwomen competing with women”. I tell you, again in so many words, that I’m speaking only and specifically of sports, and not of prisons at all: and there you go, solemnly mindreading away, and telling me, again with an apparently straight face, that I'm trying but failing to "force women's prisons and women's shelters into whatever gap you imagine must exist for sports", and that I “cannot come up with (some system) for putting a rapist in women’s prison”, et cetera.

Do you see it, now that I’ve pointed it out clearly for you, how completely weird and how utterly divorced from reality your “thinking” is? You’ll have to figure out for yourself why that is, and what “your real problem” might be!
Click to expand...

To be fair, your posts are kind of difficult to parse. It's really hard to tell where you stand on the issue.
 
lobosrul5 said:
It does in a manner of speaking. It means that it no longer requires a cisman and a ciswoman to conceive a child. Certainly has relevance to a lot MORE than just trans debates though.
Click to expand...

It might if that were ever turned into a practical method for reproduction. But that's unlikely to happen any time soon, if ever. They can't do it with animals, and there are ethical prohibitions against even trying it on humans.

And what's the point anyways? You still couldn't do it without a ciswoman, because you still need a womb to gestate the fetus. And why bother doing it without a cis man? Sperm isn't hard to come by (no pun intended). These researchers aren't pursuing this as a method of artificial human fertility. It's a waste if that's the goal.
 
mumblethrax said:
And it needed to happen, because people routinely attributed to sex things non-biological.
Click to expand...

Yeah and I could have sworn there was a period in the not too distant past where you were not supposed to do that. Where that was bad.

I've said it before and been called a transphobe, I'll see it again and probably be called a transphobe.

Trans people are bring BACK gender stereotypes just so they can use them ironically or non-traditionally and that's bad.

Again to use my "An argument is only valid if you can state it without using words that define" rule we had two criteria.

- Immutable biological differences. Some people have one type of genitals and other biological differences. .We will call this variable A.

- Social pressures put on Variable A to act like what society thought a Variable A should act like. Some Variable A's wore dresses, makeup, and heels, the other Variable A wore suits.

That's it. That's only two variables that exist. One is inarguable, it was like arguing about the sun rising and setting, the other was a bad thing.

The entire trans argument depends upon on the introduction of a new third variable that either a) reduces down to functionally being the same thing as "The Variable A I want to be" or is 100% complete gibberish.

I said a dozen times. If I don't think men and women HAVE non-biological differences, what am I even supposed to do with "I identity as this or that" as a piece of information. I've begged, literally begged somehow, anyone ot tell me what I'm supposed to actually, functionally DO with that piece of information.

If i was some backwards ******** who thought men and women had rules placed on them by society, I could it. But I'm not, so I can't.
 
Emily's Cat said:
What do you stand to lose?
Click to expand...

I suppose I would fall into the second camp of that statement, "those with basic empathy".

Though nobody is really going to be happy if these fascists (which are absolutely the people in the US spearheading these anti-trans positions) are more generally successful. The reactionary right would make our society poorer in many ways that would personally impact me (and pretty much everyone).
 
mumblethrax said:
That's. The. Point. Changing the common law definition of sex would have knock-on effect everywhere.
Click to expand...

Even under such a hypothetical scenario, changing the definition of male and female from common law to scientific still wouldn't make any difference. You're trying to play silly games with edge cases, when none of this involves edge cases.
 
mumblethrax said:
Most obviously, the scientific definition says nothing at all about who carries the babies.
Click to expand...

This is technically true, particularly if you're talking about the broad definition of sex that spans species.

However, when we're talking about HUMAN BEINGS, it's a pretty good proxy to say "those that carry the babies" versus "those that squirt some sperm"
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah and I could have sworn there was a period in the not too distant past where you were not supposed to do that. Where that was bad.

I've said it before and been called a transphobe, I'll see it again and probably be called a transphobe.

Trans people are bring BACK gender stereotypes just so they can use them ironically or non-traditionally and that's bad.
Click to expand...
Gender no more implies a specific set of gender norms than language implies English.

You can have gender without archaic gender expectations. Which is good, because having gender is inevitable.

The idea that recognizing the existence of gender is necessarily regressive is silly. The transwomen I know do not seem to be particularly interested in being subjugated by men.
 
To use the most common real world current talking point, drag.

Drag is dressing in the other sexes clothing.

If I don't think either sex "owns" a specific style of clothing, how does the concept even supposed to work for me?

We're at the level of those Seuss characters with the stars on their bellies.

To me it's like going up to me a telling me you "identify" as a specific blood type. I mean... what does that even mean? There's a blood type you ARE that you can't argue against outside of absurdity and I don't apply other factors to people's blood types, I don't 0+ people have to wear makeup and dresses. I don't treat anyone any different because they have a specific bloodtype.

I'm not doing the blood type equivalent to mis-gendering or denying your identity I just don't have a single variable I apply to you that is something you can chance to work with.

You want to be called her/she. Sure, whatever I don't care. It's a pronoun, some languages don't even gendered versions of them it means nothing. But I'm calling you her/she just because you've requested and I'm not a try-hard edgelord looking for every technicality I'm allowed to be a dick to someone over. But I'm NOT gonna lie and say it means anything, that's actually changed anything about how I view you.

If there's no factor to something other than a base definition of what it is, what's the point?
 
Ziggurat said:
Look, it's not that hard. We know what males are. We know what females are. The whole "how many hairs does it take to make a beard" testing of edge cases doesn't matter, because this debate isn't actually about edge cases. Trans people don't have DSD. We're trying to figure out what to do with people who are unambiguously male or female, but who want to be treated as if they were the opposite sex. What sex they actually are isn't actually in doubt in any of this.
Click to expand...

It's also worth pointing out that the only reason we can even talk about edge cases at all is because we all know roughly where the edge is in the first place.
 
Ziggurat said:
Even under such a hypothetical scenario, changing the definition of male and female from common law to scientific still wouldn't make any difference.
Click to expand...
You cannot know this, and it's insanely arrogant to imagine you can.

Emily's Cat said:
However, when we're talking about HUMAN BEINGS, it's a pretty good proxy to say "those that carry the babies" versus "those that squirt some sperm"
Click to expand...
Nothing in there at all about sex being immutable.
 
mumblethrax said:
The idea that recognizing the existence of gender is necessarily regressive is silly..
Click to expand...

It is until someone can explain to me in clear English what it is that

A) stays consistent for more than 4 seconds.
B) Is functionally different from "My sex has a soul" or a horoscope.

Again. Without using the word sex or gender so nobody can just hate **** the language until it just twitching.

Variable A - Actual biological differences that exist and you can't argue for or against anymore than you can your blood type.

Variable B - Social expectations put upon the two groups of Variable A. These are bad and I don't have them, or at least try to minimize them, I'm human.

Where's the 3rd Variable and what is it?

I've been asking this question literally for years.

What am I factoring into the discussion that isn't Variable A or Variable B?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom