• 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.
Emily's Cat said:
I still want significantly more stringent criteria for the treatment of minors... but I really don't think it should be imposed by the legislature.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Even if a well-informed legislature somehow managed to write the current standard of care into law, they likely would not update it quickly enough when the scientific consensus shifts one way or another.
 
Emily's Cat said:
And we've seen the result of this disparity multiple times. We've repeatedly seen middle-aged males who are not in top shape, and who were mediocre or non-competitive against other males... come in as top-placing winners when they compete against females. We've seen it in weightlifting. We've seen it in swimming. We've seen it several times in cycling. Laurel Hubbard, Lia Thomas, Rachel McKinnon, Austin Killips, Emily Bridges, nd several others I can't remember right now. All of them were mediocre or completely uncompetitive against males. And all of them took winning spots from females who were at their physical peak.
Click to expand...

As a middle-aged man who is in not top shape, who swims laps... no you haven't. I'm looking at world record progression times in 200m (long course) freestyle. The world record for women was set by Federica Pellegrini at just under 1:53 (look her up and lemme know if you think shes trans). That would've been the MENS world record until 1972 when the famous Mark Spitz broke his own world record.

I might just MIGHT be able to swim 200m in 4 minutes. Mostly I swim at about half that speed but I'm trying to survive for 1000m.

Different sports are different. Weightlifting... hell theres probably a guy at my gym over 40 who could outlift the world record female lifter. But where endurance and flexibility are concerned women are at far less of a disadvantage... or actually at an advantage for flexibility perhaps.
 
d4m10n said:
Agreed. Even if a well-informed legislature somehow managed to write the current standard of care into law, they likely would not update it quickly enough when the scientific consensus shifts one way or another.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You, EC, and myself are all agreed. Let the scientific/ medical community decide, and that goes both ways (lookin at you California).
 
lobosrul5 said:
As a middle-aged man who is in not top shape, who swims laps... no you haven't. I'm looking at world record progression times in 200m (long course) freestyle. The world record for women was set by Federica Pellegrini at just under 1:53 (look her up and lemme know if you think shes trans). That would've been the MENS world record until 1972 when the famous Mark Spitz broke his own world record.

I might just MIGHT be able to swim 200m in 4 minutes. Mostly I swim at about half that speed but I'm trying to survive for 1000m.

Different sports are different. Weightlifting... hell theres probably a guy at my gym over 40 who could outlift the world record female lifter. But where endurance and flexibility are concerned women are at far less of a disadvantage... or actually at an advantage for flexibility perhaps.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the entire thing with Lia Thomas? Thomas's time for the 200m freestyle was 1:41.93.

Unless I've forgotten how to math, that's 11 seconds faster than Pellegrini.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Did you miss the entire thing with Lia Thomas? Thomas's time for the 200m freestyle was 1:41.93.
Unless I've forgotten how to math, that's 11 seconds faster than Pellegrini.
Click to expand...

Lia Thomas is not middle aged, and is in top shape. I was also trying to point out that women may not be at AS MUCH of a disadvantage in all sports as you are claiming. The fastest woman in the world at the 200m free would've won competing against men in the 1968 Olympic games.... I actually thought I would've needed to go back much further to when no one was even swimming front crawl for that to hold true. The idea that a middle aged guy in 2023 could outswim Mark Spitz in his prime, is of course, ludicrous.

Thomas is also woefully behind in women's world records. That does not make it fair for Thomas to have competed against women in NCAA events.

ETA: if the highlighted were true, that'd be better than Michael Phelps... its not.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
Interesting. You, EC, and myself are all agreed. Let the scientific/ medical community decide, and that goes both ways (lookin at you California).
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised. Most people hold substantially the same general views, it's only around the edges where we disagree. Unfortunately, humans tend toward tribalism, and that often results in the demonization of those who disagree on even relatively minor bits.

For example, London John holds substantially the same view that I hold (and most people for that matter) when it comes to the participation of transgender identified males in female sports. We disagree on what level of sport sex-based separation should start at. LJ holds it should be for "elite and sub-elite" sports, whereas I hold it should start around middle school for competitive (non intramural) sports. Of course, I don't think we've ever gotten a really good definition of what constitutes "sub-elite" from LJ, but it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, even though we're in substantial agreement... I still get called a bigoted transphobe fear-mongering moral-panic-inducing right wing TERF for disagreeing about what age range is the appropriate point to separate sports by sex.

Realistically, there are only a very few people who post here that hold materially different views. For the most part, it's Turkey's Ghost and the departed Archie Gemmil's Goal that really have argued that transgender people should be allowed to compete solely on the basis of their identity with no holds barred. Virtually everyone else feels that there should be general sex-separation in sports, and we just quibble about when it should kick in, and whether there ought to be some case by case exceptions in very rare outlier situations.
 
d4m10n said:
Finally got around to looking at this one, and I have to say I am a bit stumped by the choice of question.

The number of genders recognized in any given society is an anthropological question: Wikipedia entry on Third GenderWP

I have to assume that the respondents were not asking themselves whether the society they live in recognizes third/fourth/fifth genders (Western societies lack a third gender role unless you count the emergent idea of non-binary individual to whom no gendered norms apply) but rather whether they want a third category added to the existing sets of social norms associated with masculinity and femininity.
Click to expand...

One, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia on the subject of gender. Neither the synopsis it provides nor the sources it cites in support of that synopsis.

Two, these surveys aren't systems of formal logic. They're not asking structural engineers a specific question about applied physics with a calculably true answer. What's interesting about the question isn't the specifics, but the general decline in acceptance of the concept - whatever it may mean to each individual respondent. What's also interesting is that even as the idea of there being more than two genders has been losing acceptance in mainstream society, there has been a proliferation of neogenders and neopronouns to match. Hopefully it's a passing fad, that most of its advocates will grow out of in due time. The survey results suggest there may be some light at the end of this particular tunnel.
 
theprestige said:
One, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia on the subject of gender. Neither the synopsis it provides nor the sources it cites in support of that synopsis.
Click to expand...
Are there any anthropologists whom you do trust to comment on the extent of third-gender societies? I don't think it's remotely controversial to say that the OECD nations have few to none, unless you count intact indigenous cultures.

What's interesting about the question isn't the specifics, but the general decline in acceptance of the concept - whatever it may mean to each individual respondent.
Click to expand...
I'm somewhat uncomfortable with surveys which rely on this particular sort of whatevering. Instead of asking well formed questions about personal preferences, PRRI is asking people to do either folk anthropology or wishcasting.

Sent from my Cheval Taipan using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
VUq6V6w.png


Not quite sure how this is going to be enforced, given that Musk seems to have got rid of all the enforcers on Twitter, but for what it's worth.... (i.e. nothing).
 
Matthew Best said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/VUq6V6w.png[/qimg]

Not quite sure how this is going to be enforced, given that Musk seems to have got rid of all the enforcers on Twitter, but for what it's worth.... (i.e. nothing).
Click to expand...

I wonder where this "cis is a slur" nonsense comes from. Presumably none of these people think that "trans" is a slur.
 
Samson said:
Cis is a fake prefix designed by trans activists.
What is there not to hate about it?
Click to expand...

Is that all there is to it? Being called "cis" is an unwelcome reminder that trans people exist? Assumed there was more to it than that.
 
Again there's no "argument" in the traditional sense of the term here, it's just one big debate about categorization and labels.

Both "sides" (as much as I hate to over simplify it to that level) aren't actually doing anything but trying to define themselves as right, not argue that they are right.

It should be exactly zero % shocking that people getting annoyed at the language being used by the other side should come up from time to time.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Again there's no "argument" in the traditional sense of the term here, it's just one big debate about categorization and labels.

Both "sides" (as much as I hate to over simplify it to that level) aren't actually doing anything but trying to define themselves as right, not argue that they are right.

It should be exactly zero % shocking that people getting annoyed at the language being used by the other side should come up from time to time.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the AP style book note that came out that lumped "TERF" and "Gender Critical" together as being too charged to be considered neutral language.

Wasn't Gender Critical created as the non-slur version of TERF?

These people can call themselves whatever they want, it won't matter. It's not the name that carries the baggage, it's the people and their political/ideological movement. They could start calling themselves "Fluggelbams" and if it caught on we'd be having "is Fluggelbams a slur" discourse in no time.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Is that all there is to it? Being called "cis" is an unwelcome reminder that trans people exist? Assumed there was more to it than that.
Click to expand...

Gotta say I can't see the problem.

The prefix cis- is Latin and means 'on this side of'. The term cisgender was coined in 1994 and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.[4][5]

Cisgender people may or may not conform to gender norms and stereotypes associated with their gender identity. A cisgender man may not necessarily exhibit all stereotypical masculine traits, and a cisgender woman may not necessarily exhibit all stereotypical feminine traits. Cisgender people's identity development is often viewed as normative, in contrast to transgender people's.
Click to expand...

Seems fair to me, I'm a cisgender male - calling me cis is simply an accurate description of my gender. It may well be meant to insult, but as far as I'm concerned it's an epic fail.
 
Lplus said:
Seems fair to me, I'm a cisgender male - calling me cis is simply an accurate description of my gender. It may well be meant to insult, but as far as I'm concerned it's an epic fail.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of anyone claiming it's an insult except for some of the anti-trans people.
 
//Hard to put into words, fair?//

I sorta on a very vague level "get" why a distinction you don't recognize could be insulting if forced on you.

I've said before that I'm not a huge fan of the term "atheist" since to me it presents the distinction in religious terms I don't accept.

I don't reject the term since it's useful in context and I don't deny that I am an atheist in the sense that I absolutely meet the definition, but it does in some not 100% easy to put into words way rub me the wrong way that it's a distinction that has to be made.

I don't know if there's a parallel here or not, just thinking out loud.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom