Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
You’ll note that isn’t what I responded to.
You’ll note I looked and did not find what he was referring to.
Cont: Transwomen are not women - part 13
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
- Status
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
“Shut up, TRA!”
ETA: In case it isn’t clear, this in response to theprestige’s post. Whatever frustration he feels, I’ve gotten it twice in a few hours, which is a fairly representative rate for the times I’ve participated.
Last edited:
Re: Upchurch:
This is a question that I'm still waiting for an answer to. You did say "that's a strawman", which I take it to mean "when Zig says 'You're saying transwomen have no advantage over women[...]" you think that's a mischaracterization of your view. I read your view the same way Zig does, but I certainly think it's a valid response to say "I'm not saying transwomen have no advantage over women, I'm saying..." and explain how your view different from Zig's characterization of it. Alternatively, you might think his characterization of it is correct, but that the implications that follow from it are different from what he claims. Or maybe something else.
Asking for some sort of response to this isn't telling you "shut up TRA". It's asking you to engage in this conversation.
I do think it's difficult to engage in discussions when there are ten people responding to and criticizing each of your posts, and so can understand some fatigue with this discussion on your side. But in so much as you're posting in this thread, you're sort of signing up for that. For my part I'll try not to reply to your posts unless I feel I have something unique to offer.
This is a question that I'm still waiting for an answer to. You did say "that's a strawman", which I take it to mean "when Zig says 'You're saying transwomen have no advantage over women[...]" you think that's a mischaracterization of your view. I read your view the same way Zig does, but I certainly think it's a valid response to say "I'm not saying transwomen have no advantage over women, I'm saying..." and explain how your view different from Zig's characterization of it. Alternatively, you might think his characterization of it is correct, but that the implications that follow from it are different from what he claims. Or maybe something else.
Asking for some sort of response to this isn't telling you "shut up TRA". It's asking you to engage in this conversation.
I do think it's difficult to engage in discussions when there are ten people responding to and criticizing each of your posts, and so can understand some fatigue with this discussion on your side. But in so much as you're posting in this thread, you're sort of signing up for that. For my part I'll try not to reply to your posts unless I feel I have something unique to offer.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
And, as I have already answered, it depends. It depends on the nature of activity/sport/competition. It depends on when in their life the person transitioned. It depends how they transitioned. Hell, it probably depends on the person was like pre-transition.
There is no one single answer to that question without context.
Now, for example and inevitably, someone will argue that because I think it is a possibility that trans-women have/don’t have an advantage over cis-women in some situations, that means that I’m arguing that trans-women have/don’t have an advantage, period, full stop. That is a straw man and not what I have been saying at all.
I’m sorry, but what Joe is doing is not asking anyone one to engage in conversation. It is absolutely an attempt to minimize counter points of view by slapping a dismissive label on it and then repeating it over and over. It’s the exact thing theprestige was pointing out, although I would argue it happens more often in the other direction than he thinks.
ETA: to be honest, I don’t even identify with the TRA label and I try to avoid using the transphobe label (although I can’t guarantee that I’ve never used it, depending on the context.)
I appreciate that. I cannot respond to every post, and there are a few posters I feel just aren’t worth engaging with. There is only so much time in the day and I don’t have the time I once had for this forum, because life. I get that and only chide other people who disappear on rare occasions.
Yes, I do step away when responses get insufferable or drown out the conversations that I’m actually interested in. I would rather be clear headed when I post.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
sigh
I’m not lying and I never said you literally used the term TLA. That phrase is a.. shorthand, I suppose, referring back to theprestige’s conversation from earlier. I even said as much the last time I quoted one of your posts.
(1) Nature of activity: I started to compile a list where it's indisputable that men have an advantage, but I quickly realized it's silly because it includes almost all sports. There' are several sports where that's debatable. I don't see why men are advantaged at archery for instance. For the miniscule list of sports where men aren't advantaged, sure, open them up to everyone.
But will you concede that for most sports by far, men have an advantage?
(2) When transitioned: Maybe boys who transition before puberty aren't advantaged. I dunno. But this is a rare exception, yes?
(3) How transitioned: Thus impresses me as highly dubious, but maybe there are factors I'm unaware of.
(4) What the person was like pre-transition: This is flat-out absurd. Individual exceptions shouldn't factor in. Since you were shorter, slower, and weaker than the average boy pre-transition, you can be on the girls team. Crikey.
Last edited:
I'm having a hard time parsing this as a response to Zig's question. His comments which precede the question were specifically in the context of pool, so your first point doesn't make sense in this context. When we're talking about pool, sure, the nature of the sport matters, but we already know what sport we're talking about. "How many calories in a 100 gram apple?" "It depends on what kind of fruit it is." isn't a meaningful response.
But here's his quote again:
You list a number of things "it depends" on. Is "it" the advantage that Zig has asked for? I think it's worth pointing out that this question is being asked in the context of segregation into men's and women's divisions. A similar question could be asked about that segregation "what is the advantage that males have over women?"
You could reply to that question similarly to how you replied to Zig's. "It depends on the nature of the sport, it depends on their diet as a child, it depends on what country they grew up on, it depends on what sports they played as a child, it depends on the DNA of their parents, hell it probably depends on their personality as a child".
But you accept this segregation, so you don't consider any of those things to be a reason not to have it.
One reason to ignore all of those "it depends" claims is that they're irrelevant because they're looking at the issue on the wrong level. The question is about the general classes of men and women, not the specific case of any particular individual.
But the same objection applies to your response to Zig's question in the trans case. The question isn't whether a particular trans woman has an advantage over females, but whether or not transwomen in general have such an advantage. Or, at least, if that's not the question then you need to explain why it is the question in the men's/women's division case.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
In athletic sports, probably? Other types, it depends. Like you point out, shooting, hunting, fishing, etc. are also considered sports. Not so much there. And, as was my point way back when, I don't consider pool an athletic sport.
Trans is pretty rare in itself. Rare enough that we could evaluate on a case-by-case basis and not necessarily needing a blanket ban?
The highly accurate and factual /s new movie "Ladyballers" tells the story of cis-men who put on a show of socially transitioning in order to play in women's sports (basketball, I think, from the trailer). Basically, it's staging the trans moral panic scenario of men pretending to be women for gain, right? Can we agree that someone who has only socially transitioned is different from someone who has taken hormones or even undergone surgery?
(Interesting side note, Ben Shapiro wanted to actually have players really do this and shoot it as a documentary, but they weren't allowed to because they're premise is not true. So, they had to do it as a fictional comedy.)
That's kinda my point. if a transwoman is short, slow, and weak, do they still have an unfair advantage that means they shouldn't be allowed to participate?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking, but I have also already answered this question. I am fine with getting rid of the segregated leagues in pool AND I'm also fine with allowing trans-women participate in the women's league. Either way is good.
As I have also pointed out (but got shouted down because I used the taboo "feminism" word), there is a historic gender role difference in playing pool. I think I also mentioned that it's similar in chess, but that's a different topic. The segregated leagues have an advantage at letting women feel comfortable playing in a sport that is historically dominated by men, without the harassment and other social pressures. (I'll refrain from using the also taboo "safe space".)
To return to a point I made at some point in the distant past of this deathspiral made up of other nested deathspirals that walks like a discussion.
We "rank" (for lack of a better term) people WITHOUT CATEGORIZING THEM all the time.
If you're a hockey player going pro they don't measure your testosterone levels and put you in the ECHL, AHL, or NHL. They watch you play hockey and see how good you are at it and just put you in the highest level you can reasonably compete at.
There's no categorical or demographic or "identity" difference between an ECHL and an AHL and an NHL player, and indeed players move between the leagues regularly but we have zero problem sorting hockey into different levels of play.
We are fully capable of going "Here's different level of plays that match up via skill" that doesn't need any "identity demographics" to work.
So yeah why not just do THAT? No womens leagues, no mens leagues, no trans leagues, no cis leagues just... here's the sport/competition/activity/whatever. The Top 1% go in the AAA League, the remaining 5% of that go in the AA League, the remaining 10% of that go into the A league all based on how well they play, no "this has to match my internal identity soul" needed.
We "rank" (for lack of a better term) people WITHOUT CATEGORIZING THEM all the time.
If you're a hockey player going pro they don't measure your testosterone levels and put you in the ECHL, AHL, or NHL. They watch you play hockey and see how good you are at it and just put you in the highest level you can reasonably compete at.
There's no categorical or demographic or "identity" difference between an ECHL and an AHL and an NHL player, and indeed players move between the leagues regularly but we have zero problem sorting hockey into different levels of play.
We are fully capable of going "Here's different level of plays that match up via skill" that doesn't need any "identity demographics" to work.
So yeah why not just do THAT? No womens leagues, no mens leagues, no trans leagues, no cis leagues just... here's the sport/competition/activity/whatever. The Top 1% go in the AAA League, the remaining 5% of that go in the AA League, the remaining 10% of that go into the A league all based on how well they play, no "this has to match my internal identity soul" needed.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Indeed. Why not?
Of course, as I've already said, some activities actually want to draw in groups that have traditionally been excluded from participating, free of those gender role pressures. That's a different objective than just determine who is the best of the best, isn't it?
*Clear my throat* Well you see it's COMPLICATED.
I dunno know. You tell me. You're the one arguing for the side that has a problem with it.
You're the "I can speak for the Trans" Lorex not me.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I literally just did.
Does the word "answer" mean something different in your world?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I don't understand what it is that you don't understand.
- Status