Continuation Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Because people who actually know biology know how limiting that is.

I do not think you fall into the classification of "people who actually know biology".

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Like species, it seems all nice and cut and dried but the closer you actually look at it the harder it can be to say if two animals are the same species or not. Are there clear examples that are not the same species sure, but there are a lot of cases where people will say they are either the same species or different ones that can interbreed or not depending.

So there always needs to be a third sterile category. And why shouldn't all sterile individuals be in it? This is about classification after all there is no shame or scorn associated with any classification, why are you getting so upset about simple and accurate classification?

No... just no. Sex is not a taxonomic classification structure. And no, there isn't a "third sterile category". Even a sterile animal is still either male or female. It's not about categorization, it's about observation.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Because people who actually know biology know how limiting that is.

First, what broad statement in any science isn't limited in some way? Even Newton's theories were limited, as shown by Einstein, but we still use them all the time, quite effectively. Being limited is not even a bug, it's a feature in science. Very little in science is absolute.

Secondly, how many biology texts should I find that prominently feature the fact of sexual reproduction between two sexes before you're convinced that it is a fundamental reality recognized in biology?

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Like species, it seems all nice and cut and dried but the closer you actually look at it the harder it can be to say if two animals are the same species or not.

So no biologist uses the concept of species?! Species are a fundamental concept of biology even if there are disagreements about the details of the definition.

You making the perfect the enemy of the useful as well as of science.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So there always needs to be a third sterile category. And why shouldn't all sterile individuals be in it? This is about classification after all there is no shame or scorn associated with any classification, why are you getting so upset about simple and accurate classification?

Sterility is not a sex, as someone else mentioned above. There are only two sexes, according to biology. It's actually a fascinating question in biology, unresolved (although there are some hypotheses) as to why three or more sexes didn't evolve.

Whether I am upset or not, and whether you are upset, has nothing to do with the logic and evidence of the issue we are discussing.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Ignoring your wibbly-wobbly and fluid definition of TERF for the nonce...

You keep making this claim that more and more ciswomen are flocking to the side of transwomen and supporting them. Do you have any support for that claim?

My impression is the opposite. Third wave feminism is hemorrhaging female supporters, because they've gotten tired of seeing the interests of every other non-female group get centered above the interests of females, on the idiotic trickle-down theory that if we address everyone else's problems first, then the problems that females face will just magically disappear.

It wasn't those "all inclusive" ciswomen who got the self-id section removed from the GRA amendment, and got Tavistock investigated.

If you're taking your impression from Twitter, though, I can see how you may have errantly assumed this as the case. What you seem to be missing is that TRA choke-hold on twitter that gets opposing female voices silenced and banned at the drop of a hat, but continues to allow self-identified transwomen to make violent threats against females on a regular basis. Not really a representative sample of the views of females.

The much cited UK poll showed that women generally supported trans-inclusive policies, almost all of which are opposed by TERF groups like FPW or LGB alliance.

When asked about trans women who have had gender reassignment surgery, women polled supported treating trans women as women with only the exception of sports. Women polled support trans inclusion in changing rooms, toilets, and rape shelters.

Polling shows plurality oppose such inclusion for trans women who have not had surgery. Interestingly, self-identified Labour and 18-24 years olds had plurality support for trans inclusion for those who have not had the surgery.

The most reliably anti-trans group polled were self-identified Tories, followed by 50+ year olds, followed by men.

If you look at the platform of these TERF groups, the majority of their agenda items are those opposed by women. Young people and liberals reject the TERF ideology entirely. Seems like a ticking clock for the TERFs.



https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...sgender-rights

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Because people who actually know biology know how limiting that is. Like species, it seems all nice and cut and dried but the closer you actually look at it the harder it can be to say if two animals are the same species or not. Are there clear examples that are not the same species sure, but there are a lot of cases where people will say they are either the same species or different ones that can interbreed or not depending.

So there always needs to be a third sterile category. And why shouldn't all sterile individuals be in it? This is about classification after all there is no shame or scorn associated with any classification, why are you getting so upset about simple and accurate classification?

Sterile males are still males. They still have male gametes, male organs, male hormones, male skeletons, male muscle mass... They still have male socialization, male life experiences, male experiences of privilege...

Plus, inventing additional sex/gender categories doesn't actually help transsexuals. The entire point of transsexuality is that gender is binary and they want to flip.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

When asked about trans women who have had gender reassignment surgery, women polled supported treating trans women as women with only the exception of sports. Women polled support trans inclusion in changing rooms, toilets, and rape shelters.

And the % of transwomen who have reassignment surgery is surprisingly low.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Sterile males are still males. They still have male gametes, male organs, male hormones, male skeletons, male muscle mass... They still have male socialization, male life experiences, male experiences of privilege...

Plus, inventing additional sex/gender categories doesn't actually help transsexuals. The entire point of transsexuality is that gender is binary and they want to flip.

So do these matter?

That's the thing with the "facts don't care about your feelings" biological essentialists, nothing else matters but whatever easily measured factor they decide is the simplest to understand.

Yes, XY and XX chromosomes exist as a dichotomy in humans. But what is unexamined by these people is why does this particular distinction matter so much? Why should it be such a huge determining factor in how we structure our society?

Despite how the matter is often framed, it is a question of a variety of factors, some much more complex than others.

Seems like a pretty concerted effort to hand wave away issues like socialization, self-perception, life experience, societal expectation, and so on. The biological essentialists desperately cling to this simple explanation, even as evidence refuting it piles up.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Dismember

This is exactly why, for all of London John’s deference to experts (which I would normally wholeheartedly agree with), I don’t trust or find the experts at all credible with regard to gender identity and the transgender phenomenon.

These are the same people and the same organizations that, with a straight face, brought us Repressed Memory Therapy, Satanic Ritual Abuse and Multiple Personality Disorder. They also used the same tactics to silence dissenting academics/researchers, and anyone skeptical of these claims and of the therapy: accusing them of supporting child abuse or being a child abuser themselves. To even dare question some of the stories told by “survivors” was considered abuse, tantamount to harming them all over again. Now, we’re accused of bigotry for daring to question the “gender identity” ideology, and any attempt at a real discussion is “literal violence” against transpeople.

This is not the first time these very same “experts” have blindly and enthusiastically promoted harmful pseudoscience. We have very good reason to doubt them.

Leading experts in the field include Zucker (who chaired the DSM5 working group and is the world leading expert on gender dysphoria) and Cantor, who are both at loggerheads with trans activists. Both are critical of the gender identity lobby and of politicians who are passing legislation not based on science, and without consulting experts. That's why they are hated by activists and are the constant target of smear campaigns.


What you say is true in general, of course. Clinical psychology is prone to political influence and pseudoscience, and there is no area more so than sex and gender. However, currently the leading experts are not the ones pushing this. They might eventually get taken down from inside (activists already managed to get Zucker fired on false allegations as I described before, but he won in court). Cantor said he is fairly safe from 'cancellation' in his current position, which is probably why he feels confident to speak out (based on his twitter feed, he is pushing back harder in recent weeks).

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Leading experts in the field include Zucker (who chaired the DSM5 working group and is the world leading expert on gender dysphoria) and Cantor, who are both at loggerheads with trans activists. Both are critical of the gender identity lobby and of politicians who are passing legislation not based on science, and without consulting experts. That's why they are hated by activists and are the constant target of smear campaigns.


What you say is true in general, of course. Clinical psychology is prone to political influence and pseudoscience, and there is no area more so than sex and gender. However, currently the leading experts are not the ones pushing this. They might eventually get taken down from inside (activists already managed to get Zucker fired on false allegations as I described before, but he won in court). Cantor said he is fairly safe from 'cancellation' in his current position, which is probably why he feels confident to speak out (based on his twitter feed, he is pushing back harder in recent weeks).

Not sure why the obvious analogy to the Satanic Panic isn't being made here. The same types of people who made baseless accusations of child sexual abuse by deviants are making those claims now about gay and trans people.

The entire "bathroom panic" is a direct descendant of this early moral panic. It's the puritanical right, not progressive activists, that smear random people as sex criminals.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Got it there is no one declaring it does not exist they are merely asking questions about if it really exists or not. Like no one denies the holocaust they are just asking questions about the common narrative.

That's a stupid comparison, and it misses the point.

It's basically a neo-Godwin response. You don't actually use the name "Hitler", but it's implied.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Ah the old no one sees any distinction between a steer and a bull argument why they don't even have different words for them.

I know a bull argument when I see one.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

That's a stupid comparison, and it misses the point.

It's basically a neo-Godwin response. You don't actually use the name "Hitler", but it's implied.

It shows how the questioning the existence of something and questioning that it can be properly fixed through proper treatment like homosexuality can be, just ask the totally not at all homophobic christian organizations dedicated to turning the gays straight. No one would ever think they could possibly be homophobic.

There is nothing homophobic or denying the existence of homosexuality in the recovered gay programs at all clearly to suggest otherwise is silly.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I know a bull argument when I see one.

Ba-dum-tch!

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Not sure why the obvious analogy to the Satanic Panic isn't being made here. The same types of people who made baseless accusations of child sexual abuse by deviants are making those claims now about gay and trans people.

The entire "bathroom panic" is a direct descendant of this early moral panic. It's the puritanical right, not progressive activists, that smear random people as sex criminals.

That Magdalen girl with all the youtube videos doesn't really strike me as puritanical or right wing. (She's the "stoner" style, featured in the previously mentioned video on intersectional feminism. After I watched that one, a whole bunch of others were listed.)

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The much cited UK poll showed that women generally supported trans-inclusive policies, almost all of which are opposed by TERF groups like FPW or LGB alliance.

When asked about trans women who have had gender reassignment surgery, women polled supported treating trans women as women with only the exception of sports. Women polled support trans inclusion in changing rooms, toilets, and rape shelters.

Polling shows plurality oppose such inclusion for trans women who have not had surgery. Interestingly, self-identified Labour and 18-24 years olds had plurality support for trans inclusion for those who have not had the surgery.

The most reliably anti-trans group polled were self-identified Tories, followed by 50+ year olds, followed by men.

If you look at the platform of these TERF groups, the majority of their agenda items are those opposed by women. Young people and liberals reject the TERF ideology entirely. Seems like a ticking clock for the TERFs.



https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...sgender-rights

The take-away from that poll is that women generally support people presenting and behaving as whatever gender they like. But they do NOT support legal self-identification, and they do NOT support male-bodied and genitally intact transwomen in their private spaces.

That is consistent with the views presented by nearly everyone in this four-volume (and counting) thread. A view that you, by the way, continuously describe as a TERF view.

This is the view held by most women.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Then get out of the discussion. You say you have no horse in this race... but you keep insisting on coming in here and telling us all how much you don't care. Oh, and how unfair it is to you to not know what the rules are.

And FFS, casting me as a transphobe and Boudicca as a rape enabler is infantile and incredibly insulting to us both. That represents neither of our views, and is just ******* rude.

So if you truly don't care... then please stop telling us how much you don't care.

My apologies. I wrongly used you as an example of a broader argument. That was unfair of me and I retract it.

But to take it down to brass tacks is it fair that in general (and this is distinct from how much any one person is willing to compromise on it) is safe to say that a general disagreement both over "safety (and related concepts such as comfort)" versus "accessibility" as well as which should be the default and who gets to make that determination is a core part of this disagreement?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

So do these matter?

I feel like my head is going to explode.

YES SOCIALIZATION, EXPERIENCE, AND PRIVILEGE MATTER!

Like I said (and you snipped out in favor of giving a rhetorical reply):

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

You persistently present women as being equivalent to white males. Do you truly view females as the oppressor in society?

Yes, i get that you view transwomen as women. That's abundantly clear. I, on the other hand, view the vast majority of transwomen as males. It's not about their gender identity. It's about their childhood conditioning and their lived experience, and their ability to represent the views of a class of people in politics.

I don't think that a person born male, raised male, and conditioned male can effectively and appropriately represent the views and needs of females. Especially because a rather large amount of discrimination against women is rooted in reproductive capacity, and a large amount of the barriers we face socially and politically are a result of our biology. Those are views that a male-born person, even if they transitioned in childhood, cannot represent or experience.

Females are discriminated against in the workplace. We still don't make as much as males do. Some of that is deeply held social views that females are primarily supposed to fill the role of mother and caregiver, not provider. Some of that is also due to the assumption that a female *might* miss some work to have a baby. Neither of those are barriers to males, and they aren't barriers to transwomen either.

Females are discriminated against in leadership and politics. We are still underrepresented. Some of that is the deeply held social view that females aren't suited for making "tough calls" because we're evolutionarily wired to be conciliatory peacemakers and carers. Some of it is because there's an assumption that we'll get bent out of shape during "that time of the month" and be completely unable to work with. Neither of those are barriers to males, and they aren't barriers to transwomen either.

Females are disproportionately subjected to sexual violence by males. We are physically weaker and smaller, and can be physically dominated and overpowered by most males. We are also at risk of unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape. Our claims to sexual and domestic abuse are frequently dismissed on the assumption that we must have done something to encourage it or to deserve it. Most domestic abuse and sexual assaults are not even investigated, and are depressingly underreported. While males can be raped, they are nearly always raped by other males. And even then, the likelihood of being physically overpowered is significantly lower for a male than for a female. A raped male doesn't face the additional risk of pregnancy. And although most male victims of rape do not speak out (thanks stupid gender roles and forced masculine stereotypes), when they do they are taken seriously and are rarely assumed to be lying or conniving or vengeful. This is a constellation of barriers that females face, that are significantly less of an issue for males, even transwomen.

You can adopt the slogan that transwomen are women, and support the view that society should treat their gender expression and presentation as valid. I have no objection to that view, and I support it as well.

But at the end of the day, transwomen are a subset of males, and cannot represent the views and needs of females effectively.

Replacing female seats in leadership and politics with transwomen does NOT address the continuing discrimination that females face. A transwoman, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot speak for females.

That's been repeatedly shown in this thread. Boudicca, as well as you, AGG, and LJ, have repeatedly dismissed physical sex as "unimportant". Despite several females in this thread explaining the ways in which sex is NOT trivial to us, and is actually a very large element of continuing discrimination against females, you continue to view it as "not a big deal". I can only conclude that because you are male, sex is not a big deal to you, and the fact that it is a big deal to females is of no account in your perspective.

For time out of mind, females have been told that their concerns, their needs, their dignity, and their safety is "no big deal", and that we're overreacting and getting hysterical about nothing important. Not because it isn't important - but because it's not important to males.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Seems like a pretty concerted effort to hand wave away issues like socialization, self-perception, life experience, societal expectation, and so on. The biological essentialists desperately cling to this simple explanation, even as evidence refuting it piles up.

You're tilting at windmills again. The only person who seems to be handwaving all of that away is YOU and your fellow TRAs.

This is what you either completely miss or pretend doesn't exist:

The experiences, conditioning, and disparate privileges of males and females in society are inextricably linked to reproductive biology and the objectively true fact of sex being binary.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I feel like my head is going to explode.

YES SOCIALIZATION, EXPERIENCE, AND PRIVILEGE MATTER!

Like I said (and you snipped out in favor of giving a rhetorical reply):

I think your belief that transwomen don't face many of the same barriers as women is absurd.

Trans women face more barriers. They face all the typical problems that come from the dangers of the male gaze and sexual stereotypes assigned to women, plus all the unique dangers rooted in transphobia.

"Women" is a broad category that includes women of various subcategories. Race, sexuality, wealth, and so on. Many of these women of various categories have wildly different experiences of being women. This includes transwomen.

In every way that matters, transwomen are much more like other women than they are like men.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

So do these matter?

In human society? I think they very much matter.

Quote:

That's the thing with the "facts don't care about your feelings" biological essentialists, nothing else matters but whatever easily measured factor they decide is the simplest to understand.

Okay, sure.

Quote:

Yes, XY and XX chromosomes exist as a dichotomy in humans. But what is unexamined by these people is why does this particular distinction matter so much? Why should it be such a huge determining factor in how we structure our society?


Despite how the matter is often framed, it is a question of a variety of factors, some much more complex than others.

Seems like a pretty concerted effort to hand wave away issues like socialization, self-perception, life experience, societal expectation, and so on. The biological essentialists desperately cling to this simple explanation, even as evidence refuting it piles up.

The biological essentialists rightly remind us that there is an essential biological component. I think the rest of your argument is a straw man against people who aren't even participating in this thread.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think your belief that transwomen don't face many of the same barriers as women is absurd.

Trans women face more barriers. They face all the typical problems that come from the dangers of the male gaze and stereotypes of women

Really? They face the danger of being forcibly impregnated?

Granted, I don't have a degree in biology, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

In every way that matters, transwomen are much more like other women than they are like men.

In every way that matters? No, most assuredly not.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

My apologies. I wrongly used you as an example of a broader argument. That was unfair of me and I retract it.

But to take it down to brass tacks is it fair that in general (and this is distinct from how much any one person is willing to compromise on it) is safe to say that a general disagreement both over "safety (and related concepts such as comfort)" versus "accessibility" as well as which should be the default and who gets to make that determination is a core part of this disagreement?

I know it wasn't addressed to me, but I'm not sure "accessibility" is really the core issue. I think it's recognition. When a transwoman wants access to a female locker room, I think there are a couple of important goals. First, she wants to be safe, in that she might fear assault in a male locker room. Another thing that she might want is recognition that she truly is a woman.

For what it's worth, if I go back to when I first became of aware of the debate, 10-15 years ago, I was more sympathetic to the trans side, because I think the fear of assault was more legitimate. I think as a society, we have generally stopped accepting any level of the sort of casual violence that was much more common back when many of us were young,

I think the "recognition" aspect has become more prominent in recent years. The person seeking access to an opposite sex locker room, bathroom, or even athletic competition wants to be perceived as a person of the opposite sex They can race with the boys, or they can race with the girls. The fact that they can win against the girls may in some cases be part of an incentive, but I think that an even bigger part of that incentive is that if they are forced to race with the boys, it means that society doesn't truly accept them as a girl, and apparently that's important.

(And...they're right. Society doesn't truly accept them as girls.)

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

In every way that matters, transwomen are much more like other women than they are like men.

Medicine and competitive sports don't matter? Experiences of discrimination and privilege don't matter?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

In every way that matters, transwomen are much more like other women than they are like men.

I think you meant, "In every way that matters to me."

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

In human society? I think they very much matter.


Okay, sure.


The biological essentialists rightly remind us that there is an essential biological component. I think the rest of your argument is a straw man against people who aren't even participating in this thread.

It's biological essentialism because factors that follow a dichotomy are held up as essential, meanwhile biological factors that are far more nuanced and hard to define are dismissed as nonsense. Even suggesting these are important has lead EC to call for some academic's degree to be revoked.

Who decides what biological factors are essential and what factors are not, and why? Biological facts are just facts, society is what applies judgement and assigns significance.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Medicine and competitive sports don't matter? Experiences of discrimination and privilege don't matter?

As we saw, complete with scientific documentation, competitive sports really don't matter to an awful lot of trans rights activists.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think you meant, "In every way that matters to me."

Sure, who else would I speak for?

Presume that every opinion on here is me speaking for myself unless otherwise noted. It gets a bit tedious attaching "I think" to everything.

Are you in the habit of not speaking for yourself?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Sure, who else would I speak for?

Presume that every opinion on here is me speaking for myself unless otherwise noted. I gets a bit tedious attaching "I think" to everything.

Are you in the habit of not speaking for yourself?

Fair enough.

[JoeMorgue]

Despite all the heated disagreement, I do also want to stress that Suburban Turkey is right. The whole "You didn't specifically say this was your opinions so therefore you are speaking for everyone" thing is the absolute last thing this discussion needs.

Let's strive for clarity without resorting to nitpicking.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Who decides what biological factors are essential and what factors are not, and why?

Various governing bodies for international sport, for the sake of jointly maximizing fairness and fostering competition.

(Assuming we're being OP about what's OT. Otherwise, the answer varies based on context.)

No one complains when fighting leagues decide to create categories based on weight or height. Are bioavailable androgens less real and measurable than these criteria?

[JoeMorgue]

I don't see sports as the game breaker (no pun) that others do.

We already have skill based sports demarcation. (AA, AAA, Pro or Varsity/JV or whatever).

Sports can just become skill based with gender ignored.

Hell you could probably gender neutral (yeah I'm using neutral as a verb, sue me) boxing just with weight classes and maintain a pretty fair level of both fairness and competition.

Tyson Fury is 6 foot 9 and about ~255 lbs. Most women shouldn't fight him just because there aren't "most women" that are that big.

[JoeMorgue]

I don't see sports as the game breaker (no pun) that others do.

We already have skill based sports demarcation. (AA, AAA, Pro or Varsity/JV or whatever).

Sports can just become skill based with gender ignored.

Hell you could probably gender neutral (yeah I'm using neutral as a verb, sue me) boxing just with weight classes and maintain a pretty fair level of both fairness and competition.

Tyson Fury is 6 foot 9 and about ~255 lbs. Most women shouldn't fight him just because there aren't "most women" that are that big.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Hell you could probably gender neutral (yeah I'm using neutral as a verb, sue me) boxing just with weight classes and maintain a pretty fair level of both fairness and competition.

A well conditioned 140 pound man would be the snot out of a well conditioned 140 pound woman.


i.e. a male who trains, is in good shape, and who maxes out at 140 pounds has a whole bunch of lean muscle to generate a lot more explosive power than a woman who maxes out at the same weight.


You could indeed keep things gender neutral in sports, and partition based on skill, but that idea isn't very popular. It shoves very strong athletes who are women into competition with flabby guys. I wouldn't say it is "wrong" to do it that way, but it's not what people have expressed a preference for, and it seems very likely that fewer women would be willing to compete.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

A well conditioned 140 pound man would be the snot out of a well conditioned 140 pound woman.

Well then the woman would then lose. She can deal with it.

Then she can have the onus of integrating this new information into her "women and men are equal" world view.

I don't care anymore.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It's biological essentialism because factors that follow a dichotomy are held up as essential, meanwhile biological factors that are far more nuanced and hard to define are dismissed as nonsense. Even suggesting these are important has lead EC to call for some academic's degree to be revoked.

Who decides what biological factors are essential and what factors are not, and why? Biological facts are just facts, society is what applies judgement and assigns significance.

It depends on the context. When it comes to medicine, those dichotomous factors are paramount. When it comes to sports, those dichotomous factors are essential for the safety, satisfaction, and entertainment of everyone involved. When it comes to pronouns, those factors don't matter at all.

There are other contexts we can and should also discuss, but I'd like to pause here for just a moment: Do you agree with me so far?

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Well then the woman would then lose. She can deal with it.

Just like what Boudicea would say or indeed has said already. Not a camp I'd want to be in.

[qayak]

No one here denies the privileges that being male has brought to male members of society, and almost no one denies that a significant amount of that has come at the expense if female members.

Fast forward to 2020. Many steps have been taken to even the playing field . . . the recognition of trans-women as women reverses the trend of levelling. Now we have a subset of males taking up resources set aside for women. You have mediocre male athletes taking very precious resources from women's sports. Men who have self identified as women for a couple months winning women of the year honours and then feeling they have their hand on the pulse if all women. Men insisting the be allowed into female safe spaces. Etc.

I support everyone's need to be seen as they wish to be seen and support them self identifying as they wish but only to the point that it infringes on a more vulnerable group. At that point reality takes over.

Kaitlyn Jenner was never woman of the year, she was trans-woman of the year and as such she can speak to the needs of trans-women. She cannot be allowed to speak for women just as we don't allow men to speak for women anymore.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Fair enough.

To me it seems like a cop-out. If he's just speaking for himself, then there's no issue. All the people he disagrees with are also speaking for themselves. If he doesn't like they way they take care of their business, tough titties. He'll just have to deal.

But that's not what he's doing. He's advocating for public policy, for government impositions on people who disagree with him about how they should take care of their business. In that context, it's actively anti-social to say, "I don't care what you prefer or what you believe or what you think is important. I'm going to impose this policy on you without regard to your own opinions or ideas."

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't see sports as the game breaker (no pun) that others do.

We already have skill based sports demarcation. (AA, AAA, Pro or Varsity/JV or whatever).

Sports can just become skill based with gender ignored.

Hell you could probably gender neutral (yeah I'm using neutral as a verb, sue me) boxing just with weight classes and maintain a pretty fair level of both fairness and competition.

Tyson Fury is 6 foot 9 and about ~255 lbs. Most women shouldn't fight him just because there aren't "most women" that are that big.

Except for the slight glitch in the works which is that a woman the same height and weight as a half back in say the All Blacks, would probably be crippled for life in an international against, say, the Saffers, or Samoa.

Or any professional rugby game, or league, or the American version, or wrestling, or martial arts...….etc etc etc

I get some people don't get the differences between female and male athletes different advantages, but a bit of trying to get it would be good.

No dude is going to beat a female at rhythmic gymnastics, or synchronised swimming.

It just is what it is.

It is swings and round a bouts

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

Just like what Boudicea would say or indeed has said already. Not a camp I'd want to be in.

I CAN'T MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY!

That's sort of always been my point.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Then she can have the onus of integrating this new information into her "women and men are equal" world view.

Why would you blithely assume female athletes generally take this view, given that they have access to the record books?