Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

AFAICT this entire thread is about their demands and the various counterproposals thereto.

Any exceptions come to mind?

Well, the OP was about a transwoman weightlifter competing in a women's division. To my eye, the topic is about where and when we make those distinctions between bio male & female versus men and women, and tangentially the social treatments that follow from such distinctions.

The TRA demands (assuming we mean the most extreme ones) are a point in the discussion, but not the thrust. As a talking point, the thread is pretty much in agreement that those extremist demands on their end are unreasonable, so it doesn't seem to warrant top billing.

 

[d4m10n]

OP was about a transwoman weightlifter competing in a women's division.

Which was allowed because of certain activist demands and would not have been countenanced otherwise.

the topic is about where and when we make those distinctions between bio male & female versus men and women

If you trouble to point to a specific example, I'll be happy to pull up the relevant demands which made it salient in the first place.

 

[Thermal]

Which was allowed because of certain activist demands and would not have been countenanced otherwise.

This cowtowing to 'activist demands' hasn't been shown. My take on it is that no one gives a flying ◊◊◊◊ what the demands are. The lawyers read the demands, and say "guys, we have a real problem with violating anti-discrimination law, here", and the rest of the Optical Theater is just that.

The TRAs are not the Puppetmasrers of the Universe. People care about losing their shirts in court, and maybe a little about which side of the Culture War they want to appear to be on.

 

[Ziggurat]

cowtowing

Kowtowing. No cows involved.

 

[Thermal]

Kowtowing. No cows involved.

I meant what I said.

 

[d4m10n]

The lawyers read the demands, and say "guys, we have a real problem with violating anti-discrimination law, here", and the rest of the Optical Theater is just that.

Laurel Hubbard took gold medals at the Pacific Games in Samoa some years ago.

Do you think that this sort of defensive lawyering played any role in that?

 

[Thermal]

Laurel Hubbard took gold medals at the Pacific Games in Samoa some years ago.

Do you think that this sort of defensive lawyering played any role in that?

I don't remember the details except that Hubbard didn't finish as well in the OP, but generally yes, I don't think any organization with significant money at stake gives much of a ◊◊◊◊ about anything but protecting their financial interests, far over their being afraid of a basically powerless group of civilians.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't think any organization with significant money at stake gives much of a ◊◊◊◊ about anything but protecting their financial interests

I don't believe antidiscrimination lawsuits have significantly dented the financial interests of any world sporting bodies, either when they opened up the female category or when they subsequently closed it upon realizing that the median sports enjoyer doesn't particularly enjoy watching folks like Laurel and Lia bumping females off of the women's podiums and records books.

I can think of a couple of examples where antidiscrimination laws did come into play, but those were being leveraged by activists like the ACLU (not exactly a powerless group of civilians) for the sake of promoting their own ideological agenda.

 

[theprestige]

Well, the OP was about a transwoman weightlifter competing in a women's division. To my eye, the topic is about where and when we make those distinctions between bio male & female versus men and women, and tangentially the social treatments that follow from such distinctions.

The TRA demands (assuming we mean the most extreme ones) are a point in the discussion, but not the thrust. As a talking point, the thread is pretty much in agreement that those extremist demands on their end are unreasonable, so it doesn't seem to warrant top billing.

You're not pretty much in agreement that the extremist demand of access women's restrooms whenever a man wants is unreasonable.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't believe antidiscrimination lawsuits have significantly dented the financial interests of any world sporting bodies, either when they opened up the female category or when they subsequently closed it upon realizing that the median sports enjoyer doesn't particularly enjoy watching folks like Laurel and Lia bumping females off of the women's podiums and records books.

I can think of a couple of examples where antidiscrimination laws did come into play, but those were being leveraged by activists like the ACLU (not exactly a powerless group of civilians) for the sake of promoting their own ideological agenda.

On the other hand, I think it is pretty much certain that sporting bodies (such as the FA) that shut transgender identified males out of women's sports in the wake of the UK Supreme Court ruling, did so at the behest of their insurance companies who made it clear they would be exposed to litigation when (inevitably) a woman were to again, be seriously injured in a game by a biological male, and that they were not going to be covered.

 

[Thermal]

You're not pretty much in agreement that the extremist demand of access women's restrooms whenever a man wants is unreasonable.

Not true.

 

[Brainster]

Not true.

So you are in agreement that the demand of access to women's restrooms whenever a man wants is reasonable?

 

[Thermal]

So you are in agreement that the demand of access to women's restrooms whenever a man wants is reasonable?

What makes you ask that, seeing as that is the opposite of what I just posted?

 

[Brainster]

What makes you ask that, seeing as that is the opposite of what I just posted?

Okay didn't catch the double negative in "not agree" and "unreasonable". My mistake.

 

[theprestige]

Not true.

Notwithstanding your protestations, I think I've reached a reasonable conclusion from the arguments you've made so far.

You consistently revert to fiat self-ID, even though you say you don't agree with it. You vilify anyone who presses you for your eligibility and enforcement proposals. You regularly talk about how fiat self-ID seems to work fine in your jurisdiction. You consistently dismiss examples of fiat self-ID not working fine in other jurisdictions. You consistently downplay women's concerns, in order to privilege a tiny fraction of men who have no good reason to justify their demands.

Not only do you do a piss poor job of arguing against this TRA demand, you do a passable job of arguing for it.

 

[smartcooky]

Notwithstanding your protestations, I think I've reached a reasonable conclusion from the arguments you've made so far.

You consistently revert to fiat self-ID, even though you say you don't agree with it.

You vilify anyone who presses you for your eligibility and enforcement proposals.

You regularly talk about how fiat self-ID seems to work fine in your jurisdiction.

You consistently dismiss examples of fiat self-ID not working fine in other jurisdictions.

You consistently downplay women's concerns, in order to privilege a tiny fraction of men who have no good reason to justify their demands.

Not only do you do a piss poor job of arguing against this TRA demand, you do a passable job of arguing for it.

Quoted (and itemized) for truth!

 

[Aber]

You consistently revert to fiat self-ID, even though you say you don't agree with it.

To be fair this applies to a few posters, although the justifications vary.

I've not seen a convincing explanation for why this happens. I have a suspicion that it's something along the lines of "I know logic leads me to the position of not allowing fiat self-ID, but that will make me look like an oppressor/bad guy/right wing, and so I have to find a little wriggle room".

 

[Manger Douse]

Trans rights are where liberal scepticism comes to die

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

P(R|M) << P(M|R)

P(R|M) = P(M|R).P(R) / P(M) = P(M|R).P(R) / [ P(M|R).P(R) + P(M|~R).P(~R) ]

P(M|R) ~ 0.98; P(M|~R) = ?; P(R) = ?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Please clarify something for me. When you refer to unisex toilets, what kind of facility are you actually describing?

Is it secure, single-occupant privies, perhaps with a unisex communal hand-washing area?
Or is it a fully communal unisex intimate space?

(Or is it some other thing that I haven't thought of?)

Highlighted option, with locks on the main entrance to the facilities to keep junkies out who, I'm sure we can all agree, can can go die in the gutter as they're not our problem.