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)

Belz... 7th March 2019 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624885)
Your statement that the question was about discriminating against 0.3% or 50%.

Ok I thought by asking you which statement exactly you'd actually link to it so as to be able to see the exact wording, but whatever.

Presumably, when someone says "men are taller than women" you understand that they don't literally mean that all men are taller than all women. So when we're talking about a subset of the population that competes in sports events, talking about discriminating against women as targetting 50% of that population is not refering to the part of the female general population that doesn't participate in competitive sports events, or to the general population. I'd think it was obvious that I was refering to the 50% of athletes who are women, assuming an equal ratio to the general population, and the 0.3% of athletes who are trans, making the same assumption.

But no. I have to spell it out. I don't know why. You don't strike me as an idiot, so I can only surmise that it's deliberate.

JoeMorgue 7th March 2019 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624892)
That seems like a perfectly non-biased source...

A publicity stunt is not sport.

I figured you'd have some excuse ready for why that "doesn't count."

Belz... 7th March 2019 10:21 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.

And because you're not personally affected you'd happily throw everybody else under the bus in order to be "inclusive" to superhumans, regular humans be damned.

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12624811)
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.

Blind soccer probably a bad example. Lots of the players aren't blind. Plus very easy for a sighted person to be blindfolded to participate.

Ziggurat 7th March 2019 10:23 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/

He lifted sumo, so I'm still going to identify him as female.
:duck:

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12624898)
And because you're not personally affected you'd happily throw everybody else under the bus in order to be "inclusive" to superhumans, regular humans be damned.

No, because I am not personally affected you cannot count me as a victim of discrimination.

The people affected are those lucky enough to be born 7' tall who didn't seem to give much of a **** about 'biological advantage' when it worked in their favour so I don't have too much sympathy for them.

JoeMorgue 7th March 2019 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624909)
The people affected are those lucky enough to be born 7' tall who didn't seem to give much of a **** about 'biological advantage' when it worked in their favour so I don't have too much sympathy for them.

The fact that you are completely incapable of realizing that your "Screw them it's not anybody's fault they don't have a biological advantage" is the exact perfect counter-argument for what you are arguing for is frankly impressive.

angrysoba 7th March 2019 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12624902)
He lifted sumo, so I'm still going to identify him as female.
:duck:

Lol! Sexist!

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12624895)
I figured you'd have some excuse ready for why that "doesn't count."

It doesn't count because it's not the bloody thing we are talking about.

He isn't trans for a start.

Seriously, if you can't tell the difference between a serious conversation and a **** taking the piss you don't deserve a seat at the big boy table.

Belz... 7th March 2019 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624909)
No, because I am not personally affected you cannot count me as a victim of discrimination.

Which is fine, since we're talking about those people who ARE.

Quote:

The people affected are those lucky enough to be born 7' tall who didn't seem to give much of a **** about 'biological advantage' when it worked in their favour so I don't have too much sympathy for them.
Then once again your only solution is to have a single category, with everybody competing, ensuring not only that far fewer people can compete than already do, but that women would be essentially excluded from every sports competition in the world, cis- or trans-.

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12624913)
The fact that you are completely incapable of realizing that your "Screw them it's not anybody's fault they don't have a biological advantage" is the exact perfect counter-argument for what you are arguing for is frankly impressive.

In your fantasy world it probably is.

JoeMorgue 7th March 2019 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624917)
He isn't trans for a start.

How do you know? If gender is a self imposed identify what "not even a real trans" even mean?

Belz... 7th March 2019 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624917)
It doesn't count because it's not the bloody thing we are talking about.

He isn't trans for a start.

How would you know that he's not "gender-fluid"?

That's very bigoted of oyu.

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12624919)
Which is fine, since we're talking about those people who ARE.

Well then get the numbers straight.


Quote:

Then once again your only solution is to have a single category, with everybody competing, ensuring not only that far fewer people can compete than already do, but that women would be essentially excluded from every sports competition in the world, cis- or trans-.
Your lack of imagination is not my problem.

angrysoba 7th March 2019 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624917)
It doesn't count because it's not the bloody thing we are talking about.

He isn't trans for a start.

So he says. But if he said he was trans and wanted to identify as female, whether he had his fingers crossed or not, how would you determine the difference?

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12624924)
How would you know that he's not "gender-fluid"?

That's very bigoted of oyu.

Because he isn't. Because if he actually was he might have an iota of empathy for trans people but he doesn't because, like yourself, he doesn't give a **** about them.

JoeMorgue 7th March 2019 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624925)
Well then get the numbers straight.

OUR NUMBERS ARE! You're the one who keeps changing in some kind of perverse Monty Hall problem where it's "All Women" in one breath and "Just the trans-women" in the next.

JoeMorgue 7th March 2019 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624928)
Because he isn't. Because if he actually was he might have an iota of empathy for trans people but he doesn't because, like yourself, he doesn't give a **** about them.

Please stop just yelling TRANSPHOBE! everytime you're argued into a corner.

Answer the question. If gender identity is self determined, how the hell would vetting the "Real" trans people from the "Fake" trans people even work? How the hell can a statement of entirely internal identity be wrong?

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12624926)
So he says. But if he said he was trans and wanted to identify as female, whether he had his fingers crossed or not, how would you determine the difference?

Because being trans is more than just crossing your fingers and saying 3 times I am a man/woman.

Belz... 7th March 2019 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624925)
Well then get the numbers straight.

Oh, stop playing games. It stopped being clever a good while ago.

You know EXACTLY what I meant, and you knew at the time as well. You're using rhetorical games in order to ignore the flaws in your argument.

Quote:

Your lack of imagination is not my problem.
On the contrary, that I can imagine the logical consequences of your argument is definitely your problem.

If biological advantage isn't a problem, then categories shouldn't exist. Let the best person win. It's going to be a man all the time, but you don't care about that because you don't participate.

If you're instead going to say that you do want categories, just not ones that separate trans women from biological females, then justify it, because you've got the exact same issue there as with a single category. We're not talking about individual skill or ability, or about how many women out of the total population have what it takes to compete about the best of the category, but rather that you've got a group which, by the very fact that they are biological males, will outperform actual females consistently, and drive them out of competition altogether.

Stop playing games and address the arguments like an adult.

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12624929)
OUR NUMBERS ARE! You're the one who keeps changing in some kind of perverse Monty Hall problem where it's "All Women" in one breath and "Just the trans-women" in the next.

Your numbers are straight where 0.3% of people entirely displace 50% of people?

Aye, right.

Belz... 7th March 2019 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624928)
Because he isn't.

Again, you don't know that. How would you know, since whether you're trans or not is a matter of self-identification?

Quote:

Because if he actually was he might have an iota of empathy for trans people but he doesn't because, like yourself, he doesn't give a **** about them.
I suppose it beats not giving a **** about women, like yourself.

See how completely unproductive your lies are? Now you're stooped to accusing other posters of bigotry, not because they have displayed that, but because they disagree with your idea about categories in competitive sports. Don't you think you're taking this a bit too far?

I do care about trans people, but I won't throw women under the bus for them. I'd rather have a solution that helps and supports both, but if given the choice between the two, I'll go with the larger group of people. Needs of the many, and all that.

Belz... 7th March 2019 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624937)
Your numbers are straight where 0.3% of people entirely displace 50% of people?

Aye, right.

No one has said this. You've been explained exactly what was said and why. But at this point your argument is so weak that your only out is to lie again and again to try to make other people look bad.

Not their argument, mind you, but the posters themselves.

angrysoba 7th March 2019 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624933)
Because being trans is more than just crossing your fingers and saying 3 times I am a man/woman.

What is it?

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12624936)
Oh, stop playing games. It stopped being clever a good while ago.

You know EXACTLY what I meant, and you knew at the time as well. You're using rhetorical games in order to ignore the flaws in your argument.

The flaws in my argument? Waiting to hear what they are. Repeatedly asserting that transwomen are not women is not pointing out anything other than your pre-existing prejudices.


Quote:

If biological advantage isn't a problem,
Well let's stop right there. I never said it wasn't a problem. What I said was that nobody cares when its 5' people being excluded from the NBA or when Serena Williams dominates tennis. It's only a problem when a trans person enters the arena. What I am asking for is consistency.

Quote:

If you're instead going to say that you do want categories, just not ones that separate trans women from biological females, then justify it,
Justify excluding them. Treating them as pariahs isn't right.

Quote:

because you've got the exact same issue there as with a single category. We're not talking about individual skill or ability,
No actually that's exactly what we are talking about. Because each of the people you are excluding is an individual person. Not a population or a bell curve.

Quote:

or about how many women out of the total population have what it takes to compete about the best of the category, but rather that you've got a group which, by the very fact that they are biological males, will outperform actual females consistently, and drive them out of competition altogether.
Take out the phrase biological males and the word actual and you describe the current situation. The difference is they all have vaginas so you don't think it's important.

You seem to have a fantasy that the status quo is a group of more or less equally capable people all competing to see who is the best thanks to skill but perhaps look at the competitions and realise that is not the case. [/quote]

Quote:

Stop playing games and address the arguments like an adult.
Let's. I am still waiting for anyone to address the example I gave of an ACTUAL transwoman playing competitive soccer and explain to me why she shouldn't be allowed to. Let's talk about real examples rather than ******** publicity stunts and fantasies

Archie Gemmill Goal 7th March 2019 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12624940)

I suppose it beats not giving a **** about women, like yourself.

Yeah I was wondering when this would be raised. Funny enough I got the same ******** arguments when I argued FOR women being better represented in STEM fields from a lot of the same people.

Belz... 7th March 2019 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624956)
The flaws in my argument? Waiting to hear what they are.

I've told you repeatedly what they are. It's disingenuous of you, even if you disagree with me, to pretend that I haven't done so.

Quote:

Repeatedly asserting that transwomen are not women is not pointing out anything other than your pre-existing prejudices.
And again, your only standing now is to attack other posters. It really shows how utterly void of value your position is.

But whether or not trans women are women is irrelevant to the discussion. What's relevant is whether trans women are female. They are not, and so it's problematic to include them in categories reserved for the latter.

It's interesting that you want to throw women under the bus in your quest for wokeness, but I suppose it parallels efforts by other far-leftists to do so for other minorities.

Quote:

Well let's stop right there. I never said it wasn't a problem. What I said was that nobody cares when its 5' people being excluded from the NBA or when Serena Williams dominates tennis. It's only a problem when a trans person enters the arena. What I am asking for is consistency.
Again you're focusing on the wrong distinction. Try this: why are women and men segregated in most sports?

Quote:

Justify excluding them. Treating them as pariahs isn't right.
Who the **** said anything about treating them as pariahs? You're so blinded by your ideology that you HAVE to be on the side of trans people that you forgot that there are limits to such efforts. You can't bend reality to make it fit their wishes, for instance, and that has zero impact on treating trans people as people or making sure they get the support and treatment they need or want. That you can't tell the difference between the two is troubling.

Quote:

No actually that's exactly what we are talking about. Because each of the people you are excluding is an individual person. Not a population or a bell curve.
See my question about segregation above. If what you say here was correct the two genders would compete together.

Quote:

Take out the phrase biological males
Denied. Trans women are biological males whether you like the fact or not.

Quote:

The difference is they all have vaginas so you don't think it's important.
What's this obsession you have with genitalia? This is at least the second time you bring it up.

Quote:

You seem to have a fantasy that the status quo is a group of more or less equally capable people all competing to see who is the best thanks to skill but perhaps look at the competitions and realise that is not the case.
And you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with strawmanning other people's posts and opinions. Stop that.

Ziggurat 7th March 2019 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624917)
He isn't trans for a start.

What's the standard for being authentically trans?

Belz... 7th March 2019 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624965)
Yeah I was wondering when this would be raised.

Nothing was raised. I was showing you why your statement was insulting and stupid. Apparently that went right over your head.

Quote:

Funny enough I got the same ******** arguments when I argued FOR women being better represented in STEM fields from a lot of the same people.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would you be accused of throwing women under the bus for that?

Belz... 7th March 2019 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624956)
The flaws in my argument? Waiting to hear what they are. Repeatedly asserting that transwomen are not women is not pointing out anything other than your pre-existing prejudices.

Coming back to this, it almost sounds like you've been served this sort of accusations yourself in the past, and are now trying to show everybody how woke you are by accusing everybody who disagrees with you of exactly this.

It's pathetic. Don't presume to know what people think beyond what they write. We're not discussing whether trans women are women, or females, or people. We're discussing whether it is FAIR to include them in female sports.

HansMustermann 7th March 2019 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624933)
Because being trans is more than just crossing your fingers and saying 3 times I am a man/woman.

No, seriously, please answer the actual question: how would you go about vetting who's really trans and who isn't? Because otherwise you're arguing that a relevant example isn't a True Scotsman.

Yes, it may involve more than crossing their fingers, but that doesn't answer the question: WHAT else do they need to qualify then? And how would you tell, if you're to exclude such cases?


Even more relevantly: are you really going to open the door that someone else can tell you whether you're really trans or just faking it? REALLY? You can actually tell someone not just that they don't qualify for one thing or another, but that they're not a (trans)woman at all? Think about it for a minute, and I'm sure you can figure out yourself why that's more transphobic than any exclusion from sports.

I do so love it when trolls dig themselves not just under a bridge, but in a deep hole under the bridge :p

HansMustermann 7th March 2019 11:40 AM

Also, since I'm going to get accused of being phobic and not knowing what it's like, bla, bla, bla, this seems like a relevant discussion to mention again that I for one grew up as BOTH. Mom wanted a boy, and luckily for her she got one. Me. Grandma wanted a girl, so she made me be one.

So I changed gender a couple of times A DAY. I was whatever gender the person I was with wanted me to be at the moment.

Forget that guy who changed before a competition and then after it. That's probably months in between changes. He's a wuss. I could be a boy in the morning, a girl by 10 AM, and a boy again in the evening when mom got home.

Well, except when I spent the summer with grandma. Read: most of the years. Then I could be a girl for like 2-3 months in a row :p

And believe me, children are GOOD at playing make belief, and I was pretty darn good at it too, if I may say so myself.

So now it's proposed that, what, someone could tell me I'm not really a boy or not really a girl? :p

Belz... 7th March 2019 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12625007)
Also, since I'm going to get accused of being phobic and not knowing what it's like, bla, bla, bla, this seems like a relevant discussion to mention again that I for one grew up as BOTH. Mom wanted a boy, and luckily for her she got one. Me. Grandma wanted a girl, so she made me be one.

So I changed gender a couple of times A DAY. I was whatever gender the person I was with wanted me to be at the moment.

That's messed up, but I have to ask: was your grandmother insane?

HansMustermann 7th March 2019 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12625016)
That's messed up, but I have to ask: was your grandmother insane?

Well, you know, I was not at an age where you're qualified to diagnose psychiatric disorders :p

Belz... 7th March 2019 11:57 AM

I hope your rising testosterone levels erased any confusion you might have had about yourself!

Ziggurat 7th March 2019 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 12618980)
It seems to me that choice should be between the child, their family, and their doctors.

Disagree?

Apparently the government of Canada disagrees. They think parents can be excluded from the decision.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/trans-t...a-court-rules/

theprestige 7th March 2019 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12624933)
Because being trans is more than just crossing your fingers and saying 3 times I am a man/woman.

Less, actually. All you have to do is say it.

theprestige 7th March 2019 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12625017)
Well, you know, I was not at an age where you're qualified to diagnose psychiatric disorders : p

The good news is that by now I have more high-quality data on your grandmother than any patient I have ever treated.

HansMustermann 7th March 2019 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12625054)
The good news is that by now I have more high-quality data on your grandmother than any patient I have ever treated.

Well, I guess then you can tell Belz whether she was insane or not :p

theprestige 7th March 2019 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 12625110)
Well, I guess then you can tell Belz whether she was insane or not : p

That would be unethical. Plus, I don't even know for sure that your grandmother is a she.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:15 PM.

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