International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Trans Women are not Women (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325369)

cullennz 6th March 2019 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624200)
I don't really think that's how societies work. or it's not how they SHOULD work anyway



Who are still part of society and last I checked every bit as deserving of rights as elite's women athletes for example



Well that's the whole point. Asking why these things are the way they are seems to lead to inconsistencies which are answered by admonitions that you are being clueless or deliberately obtuse rather than straight answers.

It seems self evident to some that there is great innate value in excluding some women from sport because they might be a bit too good at it.

Looking at the stakeholders in all of this:

- You have the 99.9% of women who are not elite athletes. I don't see how they lose anything other than the pretence that they could have been

- You have the 0.01% who are elite athletes worried they will be displaced. Which seems slightly hypocritical since they don't seem all that worried about the people below them that they 'displaced' and my sense is that is probably significantly based on biological advantages also. If there is some hard data here I might change my mind but I really haven't seen anything that tells me that a transwoman is necessarily light years ahead of an elite woman athlete.

- You have the paying public. Who apparently enjoy to watch lower level sport provided the participants have vaginas. Even though they can't see them apparently it matters. Is this kind of aesthetic preference how we want to run our sports because I am sure there are plenty people who would rather see an all white 100m race as well?

No they enjoy watching lower level sport provided it is competitive, and Trans women take the "competitive" out of the equation.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12624119)
Cis-women have as much right to representation as trans-women do.

Indeed. Or rather the right to participate.

Quote:

A league that is almost totally devoid of them outside of a slim majority at best, a few statistical outsiders at worst can't be just hunky dory with you if you're entire argument is based on inclusion of another subcategory.
It's already a few statistical outsiders. That's kind of how elite sports works. But I have never argued for a league dominated by transwomen. This is your concoction.

Quote:

That's why it's "women" are a category when it is convenient for you but it's separate "trans women and cis women" when that's convenient for you, because that's the only way for you to pretend this circle is square.
You've got this exactly backwards. It's women as a category including transwomen. If you start with the assumption that transwomen are women then things look different. This may be where we are struggling to see eye to eye because if you start with that assumption then you end up saying 'some women are just too good to play with other women so we need to separate them out' and then I am genuinely struggling to see why the same argument wouldn't apply to Serena Williams for example.

Quote:

Your entire argument is we have to include the trans-women to be fair, but when we point out that they would outperform the cis-women to the point that they would largely be excluded your excuse it "Well that doesn't matter since they are all women" as if that isn't the exact opposite of what the entire point of the inclusion is.
No my entire argument is that you don't exclude transwomen to be fair. If there are other ways to include them I am listening. Ciswomen would not be excluded.

Quote:

WHICH IS IT? All women or some women? Pick one! If one subcategory of "All women" represents all women we don't need the worry about inclusion, if not we can't worry about half of the time.
No one subcategory does not represent all women. But you can't exclude one sub-category and then claim that is all women. Of course if some women aren't as good then they will have to perform at a lower level. But that is exactly the situation we have right now!

Quote:

But even this is all secondary. The primary problem is you're living in a fantasy world were trans-women dominated sports are going to have a viable audience.
The fantasy world is yours where we have trans-women dominated sports. If and when that happens we can address the problem.

Quote:

You can't see beyond your "Well I don't have a problem with it..." blinders as if the fact that you aren't the only person sports have to accommodate or cater to just can't get through your skull.
No I can't see beyond the fact that people have nothing beyond 'transwomen aren't women so to hell with them' as if somehow that's an argument.

Ziggurat 6th March 2019 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624200)
I don't really think that's how societies work. or it's not how they SHOULD work anyway

In regards to sex segregation in sports? Yeah, that's how it works. Most people don't have any need for it to change. "Should" is sort of beside the point.

Quote:

Who are still part of society and last I checked every bit as deserving of rights as elite's women athletes for example
We don't sex segregate just for the sake of the competing athletes. I've pointed this out before.

Quote:

- You have the paying public. Who apparently enjoy to watch lower level sport provided the participants have vaginas. Even though they can't see them apparently it matters.
Are you under the impression that genitals are the only thing that separate women and men?

Quote:

Is this kind of aesthetic preference how we want to run our sports
Who exactly is "we" in this sentence?

Quote:

because I am sure there are plenty people who would rather see an all white 100m race as well?
The difference between the sexes isn't comparable to the difference between races. And no, I don't think there are that many people who would want to racially segregate races.

Archie Gemmill Goal 6th March 2019 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12624222)
No they enjoy watching lower level sport provided it is competitive, and Trans women take the "competitive" out of the equation.

If this is the case then the question should become how can we incorporate ACTUAL transwomen into sport in a way that maintains competitiveness rather than inventing random scenarios where Roger Federer joins the womens tour surely?

JoeMorgue 6th March 2019 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624227)
It's already a few statistical outsiders. That's kind of how elite sports works. But I have never argued for a league dominated by transwomen. This is your concoction.

You keep hiding behind "But most women can't compete on the top tier level anyway, so it doesn't matter" and that makes no sense.

So basically when a cis-woman puts the effort into raising to the absolute physical pinnacle of her gender but still can't compete on a professional level because the only options at that level of "biological male or biological male that identifies as female" your response is "Well fiddle-dee the odds where already against you what's the difference..."

So your argument is that Serena Williams should just be happy playing tennis at her local YMCA on the weekends, never achieving recognition because male biology is dominating every level of professional sports because her odds of success were so small anyway?

Quote:

No I can't see beyond the fact that people have nothing beyond 'transwomen aren't women so to hell with them' as if somehow that's an argument.
Listen I can tell you're just bursting at the seams to just scream "TRANSPHOBE!" as your entire argument and hope that causes everyone to run away with their tail between their legs, but actual meaningful distinctions are being made here, even if you don't agree with them.

theprestige 6th March 2019 06:05 PM

And that, luchog, is what skill levels would look like in co-ed competition.

cullennz 6th March 2019 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624234)
If this is the case then the question should become how can we incorporate ACTUAL transwomen into sport in a way that maintains competitiveness rather than inventing random scenarios where Roger Federer joins the womens tour surely?

We are. It is just that most people on here seem to think just chucking them in with women isn't the greatest option.

Which leaves a separate category, or bite the bullet and just face the fact not being eligible for elite sport is a sacrifice you need to think about before transitioning.

Lithrael 6th March 2019 10:10 PM

No bites then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithrael (Post 12614881)
what I'd advocate is some kind of handicap system. It would take some maths and fine tuning but I don't think it'd be that hard to find the right spot where trans athletes can still win on occasion but don't obliterate the competition. Something like, say the cis male record time is one minute and the cis female record time is one minute ten seconds, let all the women race together but put a (10-x) second handicap on the trans women competitors. It would still hurt some feelings but at a level I think everyone could deal with. You do have to balance 'treat me like x' with 'give everyone a fair shot.' That is, if you want to formally compete in women's sport, yeah, you'd have to be out as trans and get the special rules. It's not ideal but neither is the world.


Matthew Best 6th March 2019 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624200)
Looking at the stakeholders in all of this:

- You have the 99.9% of women who are not elite athletes. I don't see how they lose anything other than the pretence that they could have been

- You have the 0.01% who are elite athletes worried they will be displaced. Which seems slightly hypocritical since they don't seem all that worried about the people below them that they 'displaced' and my sense is that is probably significantly based on biological advantages also.

And there's presumably the remaining 0.09% that you haven't identified.

I am intrigued!

cullennz 6th March 2019 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 12624406)
And there's presumably the remaining 0.09% that you haven't identified.

I am intrigued!

Lol

HansMustermann 6th March 2019 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12623967)
To use an imperfect metaphor for a lot of trans people being slotted into a third category would be akin to solving segregation by making a third section at the lunch counter.

(Most) Trans-women don't want to be a special new category of women, they want to be sign as women, period.

The point, though, is that equality is a thing only when things are equal. You are still allowed to discriminate when it actually does make a difference.

It's even in the employment laws. It's called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) in the US, or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) in Canada, or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) in the UK. The LGBT community can suc... err... look it up.

E.g., you can't prefer whites to blacks or viceversa to operate a crane, because that makes no difference to pulling the levers. You ARE however quite within your rights to only hire whites to play the role of Lincoln in a movie, or conversely to only consider black actors for the role of Mandela or Rosa Parks. Because the colour is an important part of that role, and does make a visible difference on film.

E.g., you can't discriminate by age when hiring an accountant, but you CAN if you're shooting porn or a high school drama.

It seems to me like if in sports the categories are based on the biological differences between biological men and biological women, then yes, it is the same thing. One can jolly well discriminate in that case, and idiots moaning about it being discrimination are just too stupid to be having that argument. Even if they happen to be LGBT.

Jimmy9 7th March 2019 01:46 AM

Makes me wonder if there any Trans men that compete in mens sports.

Puppycow 7th March 2019 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy9 (Post 12624463)
Makes me wonder if there any Trans men that compete in mens sports.

Yup. 2 seconds of googling found a list of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transg...orts#Trans_men

Here's one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Mosier

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12624238)
You keep hiding behind "But most women can't compete on the top tier level anyway, so it doesn't matter" and that makes no sense.

So basically when a cis-woman puts the effort into raising to the absolute physical pinnacle of her gender but still can't compete on a professional level because the only options at that level of "biological male or biological male that identifies as female" your response is "Well fiddle-dee the odds where already against you what's the difference..."

That's exactly what I didn't say.

I said it makes no difference to the 99.9% of women who wouldn't have succeeded anyway because some women are bigger and stronger and fitter than them biologically.

Quote:

So your argument is that Serena Williams should just be happy playing tennis at her local YMCA on the weekends, never achieving recognition because male biology is dominating every level of professional sports because her odds of success were so small anyway?

Again you have invented this reality where a tiny fragment of the population dominate but rolling with it what I am asking is what is the difference between Serena Williams dominating because she is graced with better biology and transwoman Serena Willimans dominating because she is graced with better biology?

Some women are bigger and stronger and fitter than others this is a reality of sport. If you accept that a transwoman is a woman then its just another matter of biological lottery if she is bigger and stronger than Serena Williams.

Quote:

Listen I can tell you're just bursting at the seams to just scream "TRANSPHOBE!" as your entire argument and hope that causes everyone to run away with their tail between their legs, but actual meaningful distinctions are being made here, even if you don't agree with them.
Actual meaningful distinctions are not being made though. Invented fantasies are being put forward and the only justification being offered is 'TRANSWOMEN AREN'T WOMEN!'

Puppycow 7th March 2019 02:33 AM

One sport that women athletes seem to excel at is "ultramarathons". (not trans women, but actual biological women).

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...e-ultrarunning

Quote:

The British ultrarunner Jasmin Paris is celebrating after becoming the first woman to win the gruelling 268-mile Montane Spine Race along the Pennine Way. What made the performance even more extraordinary was that she shattered the course record by 12 hours – while also expressing breast milk for her baby at aid stations along the route.
Let's see, 268 miles would be 10 marathons I think.

https://gearjunkie.com/courtney-dauw...oab-200-winner

Quote:

Courtney Dauwalter finished the Moab 240 race in 2 days, 9 hours, and 59 minutes. She was faster than any of the men in the pack, beating the second-place finisher by more than 10 hours.

The Moab 240 Endurance Run caters to a special (some might say crazy) breed of ultrarunners. Only 150 registrants are allowed, and runners have a cutoff at 112 hours. That’s nearly five days of running.

Courtney Dauwalter finished much faster than that, at just less than 58 hours. She averaged 14.6-minute miles and 97.7 miles per day. Her performance crushed the competition, with second-place Sean Nakamura crossing the line in 67 hours, 44 minutes.
My hypothesis is that races of this kind favor people with a low body weight. Women, being smaller, tend to be lighter. It could be something else though. Able to perform with less sleep maybe. I'm guessing with a race of this distance you can't do the whole thing in one shot. You need to stop and rest along the way.

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12624345)
We are.

Where?

Quote:

It is just that most people on here seem to think just chucking them in with women isn't the greatest option.

Which leaves a separate category, or bite the bullet and just face the fact not being eligible for elite sport is a sacrifice you need to think about before transitioning.
I am glad you have done all the research and investigated every option to determine that the status quo is the best option. I am not that well informed yet so it would be great if you could show your working to get me up to speed.

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12624412)
The point, though, is that equality is a thing only when things are equal. You are still allowed to discriminate when it actually does make a difference.

It's even in the employment laws. It's called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) in the US, or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) in Canada, or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) in the UK. The LGBT community can suc... err... look it up.

E.g., you can't prefer whites to blacks or viceversa to operate a crane, because that makes no difference to pulling the levers. You ARE however quite within your rights to only hire whites to play the role of Lincoln in a movie, or conversely to only consider black actors for the role of Mandela or Rosa Parks. Because the colour is an important part of that role, and does make a visible difference on film.

E.g., you can't discriminate by age when hiring an accountant, but you CAN if you're shooting porn or a high school drama.

It seems to me like if in sports the categories are based on the biological differences between biological men and biological women, then yes, it is the same thing. One can jolly well discriminate in that case, and idiots moaning about it being discrimination are just too stupid to be having that argument. Even if they happen to be LGBT.

I've never seen anyone discriminated against for a job because they would be too good at it and make the other employees look bad though.

And you know this nonsense also affects cis-women in sport who are accused of being men if they happen to look a bit muscley. That nonsense should be stopped as well.

I asked a question previously about a solid example of a transwoman footballer who is playing competitive but non-elite soccer in Scotland. Should she be stopped from participating? If so why?

cullennz 7th March 2019 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 12624476)
Yup. 2 seconds of googling found a list of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transg...orts#Trans_men

Interesting link that one

I haven't looked at all of them, but half the trans men seem to have changed after their careers and of the ones who did it while competing there is pretty much one or two who were still competitive

Trans female list seems to be a lot of trans women whipping ****

The Trans female MMA one is telling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallon_Fox

Way to go Fallon, "the woman"

Quote:

During Fox's fight against Tamikka Brents, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head in the 1st round. After her loss, Brents took to social media to convey her thoughts on the experience of fighting Fox: "I've fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can't answer whether it's because she was born a man or not because I'm not a doctor. I can only say, I've never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right," she stated. "Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn't move at all in Fox's clinch..."

HansMustermann 7th March 2019 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624487)
I've never seen anyone discriminated against for a job because they would be too good at it and make the other employees look bad though.

Except in sports it being fair is kind of the whole point.

So, yeah, sorry, coming up with more nonsense and distortions doesn't impress me much.

JihadJane 7th March 2019 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624487)
I've never seen anyone discriminated against for a job because they would be too good at it and make the other employees look bad though.

And you know this nonsense also affects cis-women in sport who are accused of being men if they happen to look a bit muscley. That nonsense should be stopped as well.

I asked a question previously about a solid example of a transwoman footballer who is playing competitive but non-elite soccer in Scotland. Should she be stopped from participating? If so why?

No need to insult women by calling them "cis". "Women" suffices.

And did you never hear of people being turned down for a job because they were over-qualified?

Belz... 7th March 2019 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624227)
It's already a few statistical outsiders. That's kind of how elite sports works.

Every. Single. *******. Post.

The conversation is about THE OUTLIERS already! Stop talking about people who will never compete anyway. The topic isn't about them.

Belz... 7th March 2019 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12624228)
racially segregate races.

:D

applecorped 7th March 2019 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12624412)
The point, though, is that equality is a thing only when things are equal. You are still allowed to discriminate when it actually does make a difference.

It's even in the employment laws. It's called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) in the US, or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) in Canada, or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) in the UK. The LGBT community can suc... err... look it up.

E.g., you can't prefer whites to blacks or viceversa to operate a crane, because that makes no difference to pulling the levers. You ARE however quite within your rights to only hire whites to play the role of Lincoln in a movie, or conversely to only consider black actors for the role of Mandela or Rosa Parks. Because the colour is an important part of that role, and does make a visible difference on film.

E.g., you can't discriminate by age when hiring an accountant, but you CAN if you're shooting porn or a high school drama.

It seems to me like if in sports the categories are based on the biological differences between biological men and biological women, then yes, it is the same thing. One can jolly well discriminate in that case, and idiots moaning about it being discrimination are just too stupid to be having that argument. Even if they happen to be LGBT.

This

JoeMorgue 7th March 2019 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12624558)
Every. Single. *******. Post.

The conversation is about THE OUTLIERS already! Stop talking about people who will never compete anyway. The topic isn't about them.

Like I said that's the only way he can square his circle.

"There's too many blue marbles in bowl. It's unfair that one type of marble is getting left out."
"Okay we'll add some red marbles. Okay the red marbles took up all the space and no there's no blue marbles anymore."
"Who cares? They are all marbles, it doesn't make a difference."
"But you just had us add more of one type of marbles in order to fix an imbalance. No you're saying the exact same thing in the other direction isn't an imbalance because you redefined the terms by removing the very subgroups the entire thing was based on."
"No I didn't. Who cares anyway there's millions of marbles in the world that were never going to be in the bowl, so I don't see why we should care."

JoeMorgue 7th March 2019 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624479)
I said it makes no difference to the 99.9% of women who wouldn't have succeeded anyway because some women are bigger and stronger and fitter than them biologically.

No it doesn't make a difference to YOU and you can't see beyond that. Again your entire argument has been a self centered "Well I don't see the problem, end of discussion."

And yet again it's doublespeak where "women" are one singular category in one breath but distinct "cis-women and trans-women" in the other.

If cis-women are supposed to just be perfectly happy watching a league of mostly trans-women compete because "Hey they are all women right, what's the difference?" the exact same argue nullifies your argument.

A lot of women are not going to be happy watching a "Women's Sport" which is dominated by biological men, regardless of their gender identity.

You can rant and rave, you can call them transphobes, you can scream until you are red the face but that won't change. And sports isn't civil rights or legal protection it doesn't work if people aren't interested in and invested in it.

sadhatter 7th March 2019 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624487)
I've never seen anyone discriminated against for a job because they would be too good at it and make the other employees look bad though.

And you know this nonsense also affects cis-women in sport who are accused of being men if they happen to look a bit muscley. That nonsense should be stopped as well.

I asked a question previously about a solid example of a transwoman footballer who is playing competitive but non-elite soccer in Scotland. Should she be stopped from participating? If so why?

I have.

I'm a social worker and I used to do work with good will. They used to run a job program in some donation centres for those with disabilities.

Often people didn't know that this was the case with employment at a specific centre, and would apply, and be turned down. Reason being if we excepted people without disabilities then the people with would not be able to compete with them.

JoeMorgue 7th March 2019 07:58 AM

British man identifies as female, breaks female dead-lifting record, goes back to identifying as male.

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/rapper...fying-as-male/

Ziggurat 7th March 2019 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12624559)
:D

I wish I could say I intended that. I am ashamed.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...a7b4b17071.jpg

HansMustermann 7th March 2019 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JihadJane (Post 12624537)
No need to insult women by calling them "cis". "Women" suffices.

And did you never hear of people being turned down for a job because they were over-qualified?

I think the problem isn't even with being over-qualified. The genuine requirements for something can also be that you're "less" in some aspect.

E.g., some muscular 200 pound guy may be better qualified as a boxer, but we explicitly don't want him punching an 100 pounds minimumweight guy. The 100 pounds guy probably doesn't even have the skeleton density to resist a full force punch from the 200 pound guy.

E.g., being able to use your eyes definitely gives you an advantage in soccer, but disqualifies you from blind soccer. (It's a real sport, btw.)

But probably the best illustration in sport is simply the fact that we disallow doping. Taking steroids certainly makes one better at the "job" in most sports, but we disqualify people for it.

And more importantly for the topic: no amount of moaning about how one identifies as something else means the rest of us should waiver those requirements. I can identify as a blind guy all I want, they're not going to let me into a blind soccer team.

JoeMorgue 7th March 2019 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12624811)
And more importantly for the topic: no amount of moaning about how one identifies as something else means the rest of us should waiver those requirements. I can identify as a blind guy all I want, they're not going to let me into a blind soccer team.

Just so you know "Trans-abled" people are a thing that exist so... don't hold your breath on that. That's gonna be a thing sooner or later. A person who "identifies" as disabled wanting to be on a... wheelchair basketball team or something is gonna happen any day now.

Belz... 7th March 2019 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12624827)
Just so you know "Trans-abled" people are a thing that exist so... don't hold your breath on that. That's gonna be a thing sooner or later. A person who "identifies" as disabled wanting to be on a... wheelchair basketball team or something is gonna happen any day now.

If I identify as a billionnaire, is society obliged to give me my missing millions?

HansMustermann 7th March 2019 09:54 AM

I think the more relevant scenario is: if a billionaire self-identifies as a poor man, should he stop paying taxes?

Belz... 7th March 2019 09:55 AM

Ah, a much better example, yes.

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12624558)
Every. Single. *******. Post.

The conversation is about THE OUTLIERS already! Stop talking about people who will never compete anyway. The topic isn't about them.

So why did you bring up the 50%?

Belz... 7th March 2019 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624875)
So why did you bring up the 50%?

What statement of mine are you refering to, exactly?

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12624628)
No it doesn't make a difference to YOU and you can't see beyond that.

No it objectively makes no difference. As a matter of fact.

If a race of 9 feet tall basketball playing superhumans were teleported into the world tomorrow it would objectively make ZERO impact on my likelihood of playing in the NBA.

Pretending otherwise is just trying to create victims where none exist.

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12624877)
What statement of mine are you refering to, exactly?

Your statement that the question was about discriminating against 0.3% or 50%.

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12624700)
I have.

I'm a social worker and I used to do work with good will. They used to run a job program in some donation centres for those with disabilities.

Often people didn't know that this was the case with employment at a specific centre, and would apply, and be turned down. Reason being if we excepted people without disabilities then the people with would not be able to compete with them.

I'm reading this and it seems like you aren't disabled but yet you were able to work in the good will that excluded able bodied people? I'm confused. Perhaps I am missing some information.

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12624720)
British man identifies as female, breaks female dead-lifting record, goes back to identifying as male.

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/rapper...fying-as-male/

That seems like a perfectly non-biased source...

A publicity stunt is not sport.

JoeMorgue 7th March 2019 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624882)
If a race of 9 feet tall basketball playing superhumans were teleported into the world tomorrow it would objectively make ZERO impact on my likelihood of playing in the NBA.

But it would affect the likelihood of people who are currently playing in the NBA for the love of Pete Sampras how is THAT YOU STILL DON'T GET THIS?

All the biological women competing in high and professional level sports right now, at this point in time, would have an almost zero chance of staying at that competitive level if biological men who identify as women started entering sports on a regular basis.

What combinations of words have to come out of my mouth to get you understand that?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.