Continuation Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Butter!

If I'm way off in my understanding of this, I apologize. The only sport I've ever been involved in was martial arts, and we were always paired up for sparring by belt-rank. Gender wasn't usually a factor. The men did usually kick my ass, but not always. Sometimes you can get a lucky shot in, based on skill.

I routinely compete in a form of martial arts against women, and it's interesting that in my sport (which is simulated medieval combat, but not the heavy duty stuff you see on a couple of recent TV series) there are almost never female-only competitions, and most of the women don't want them.

A lot depends on culture. In my sporting area, we have created a little subculture where it works, but we aren't a spectator sport, and we are small enough that an impressive woman can still be noticed and stand out even if she is eliminated in the third round of the tournament. As long as plenty of men are eliminated in the second round, the advancement to the third round is noticed.

It's conceivable that a skills-based league could work at the high school level for individual sports, but even there, the problems become obvious fairly quickly. High school kids compete to "make the team". Ordinarily, you have X slots per school for a track meet. Do you reserve a few of those slots for girls? If not, no girls go to the track meet. There aren't two track meets, one for the best, and one for the next tier.

In spectator sports, you don't have competitions for "athletes that aren't good enough to be on the top pro teams." The closest anyone comes to that are baseball's minor leagues. They only exist as a training ground for potential major league players someday, and to provide casual, low cost entertainment. And to the best of my knowledge, no woman has every competed in the minor league baseball.

Serena Williams is an incredibly impressive tennis player, but if she were competing against men she would be a footnote.

ETA: There have been three women who have played minor league professional baseball in America.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I've made this clear in the past to others. No.

On the one hand, there's something silly about not answering a question posed by A because you've answered B about the same question. I didn't see your earlier answer. How difficult is it to just type an answer? It doesn't have to be - in fact, shouldn't be - a dissertation, or even a paragraph.

On the other hand, I respect the right of anyone not to engage in conversation.

[JoeMorgue]

Again since people are missing my follow-up post.

- "What makes sports fans happy" only applies to sports, it shouldn't be used as a litmus test for wider society.

- Sports fans are never happy.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This is axiomatically true, with the proper choice of definition for "woman".

But you have never made that definition clear. Attempts have all resorted to circular reasoning. And that's before we even get to the question of whether we should prefer that definition, and use it to make the sort of distinctions under discussion here.

Nothing new under the sun.

Originally Posted by Sokal

It seems to me that much sloppy thinking in Science Studies, like that in Latour's Third Rule of Method, involves conflating concepts that need to be distinguished. Most frequently this conflation is accomplished by terminological fiat: the author intentionally uses an old word or phrase in a radically new sense, thereby undermining any attempt to distinguish between the two meanings. The clear goal here is to achieve by definition what one could not achieve by logic.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"Because it makes sports fans unhappy" is not something we should be using to judge this on.

Other than the entire reason elite sports exist, the fans don't even matter in this.

What pisses me off is some bloke in panties turning up and beating women who have trained for years to reach the top of their sport.

I've already posted in this thread how the Williams sisters thought they'd be competitive against men ranked lower than 200, only to be wheeled by a bloke ranked #203 who got drunk beforehand to give them a chance, and even that failed to help the sisters.

The idea that any kind of level playing field is possible between the sexes is absurd.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Paul2

On the one hand, there's something silly about not answering a question posed by A because you've answered B about the same question. I didn't see your earlier answer. How difficult is it to just type an answer? It doesn't have to be - in fact, shouldn't be - a dissertation, or even a paragraph.

On the other hand, I respect the right of anyone not to engage in conversation.

It's nothing personal, I just don't answer that question at all.

It's been my experience that people trying to demand that we transpeople define what it is to be a "man" or "woman" just want to inevitably twist and turn it against us. It's a trap that I'm not stepping into.

There is no possible answer that satisfies anyone, so I just don't answer the question.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

It's nothing personal, I just don't answer that question at all.

It's been my experience that people trying to demand that we transpeople define what it is to be a "man" or "woman" just want to inevitably twist and turn it against us. It's a trap that I'm not stepping into.

There is no possible answer that satisfies anyone, so I just don't answer the question.

If you meet one jerk, you've met a jerk. If everyone you meet is a jerk, then you're the jerk.

You ever stop to consider that the fact you don't have a good answer may actually mean it's a bad idea?

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by theprestige

If you meet one jerk, you've met a jerk. If everyone you meet is a jerk, then you're the jerk.

You ever stop to consider that the fact you don't have a good answer may actually mean it's a bad idea?

I absolutely have an answer. I know why I'm a woman, but it may be different than what another person considers a woman a woman. The goal of a question like that is to argue that we aren't who we say we are.

I'm not giving anybody any ammunition against me. So sorry, but find another way to dissect me.

[d4m10n]

RBG once said "You tell me what a sandwich is, and I'll tell you if a hot dog is a sandwich." Similarly, it's impossible to say whether "Trans women are women" if you're unwilling to define the key terms.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I absolutely have an answer. I know why I'm a woman, but it may be different than what another person considers a woman a woman. The goal of a question like that is to argue that we aren't who we say we are.

I'm not giving anybody any ammunition against me. So sorry, but find another way to dissect me.

Have you thought about just going with what actual women say, as you know, they might be quite good at letting you know, given they are, like, women, and that?

Or is it full on just override the people you are talking about with your own internal definition coming from someone who isn't a female?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I absolutely have an answer. I know why I'm a woman.

So tell us.

Define woman (as you are using it.) and explain why you are one in a way that isn't entirely self-defined and "I am because I say so" circular and that doesn't make us re-write the concept in every other scenario.

Your anger does not change the fact that they are people in this discussion who want nothing more than to understand what you are trying to tell us so we can work toward some level of making all of this work.

[JoeMorgue]

I've longed dismissed arguments when they are either "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" arguments or "I say I have 8 fingers and two thumbs, you say we have 10 fingers" arguments.

I'll be good and goddamned if I'm going to be called a bigot because nobody will clarify "How many legs does a dog have if you call a thumb a finger?"

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

RBG once said "You tell me what a sandwich is, and I'll tell you if a hot dog is a sandwich." Similarly, it's impossible to say whether "Trans women are women" if you're unwilling to define the key terms.

A bit like down here what americans call a chicken sandwich (chicken in a burger bun), we just call a chicken burger.

Now you could get all sensitive and say yanks are breadfillingacists or flourycistic against chicken, but it actually comes down to straight what is a burger.

The meaty bit or the bunny bit, or the whole thing.

Sorry, that was an odd post, my mind wondered

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So tell us.

Define woman (as you are using it.) and explain why you are one in a way that isn't entirely self-defined and "I am because I say so" circular and that doesn't make us re-write the concept in every other scenario.

Your anger does not change the fact that they are people in this discussion who want nothing more than to understand what you are trying to tell us so we can work toward some level of making all of this work.

I wasn't that angry before, but I'm certainly getting that way when people like you won't listen to what I say. For the final goddamn time, I am not going to answer that question!

You and the others here who are also asking have no desire to "understand" us at all, just to put us in our place based on your preconceived notions.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I've longed dismissed arguments when they are either "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" arguments or "I say I have 8 fingers and two thumbs, you say we have 10 fingers" arguments.

I'll be good and goddamned if I'm going to be called a bigot because nobody will clarify "How many legs does a dog have if you call a thumb a finger?"

No, you have provided many other reasons for that.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Butter!

Yes, and that's why I did try to emphasize that I don't know whether it would work or not. I don't like to get too far into the sports debate, because I admit that I know nothing. I'm not a sports fan, but I'm also not a sports hater. I defend sports against their haters, in fact. I think they're an important part of human culture, down through the ages. I would like a solution that worked for most people.

Skill leagues are generally said to be a bad solution by sports fans. Would that be very different from the way things are now, though? Wouldn't we still end up with a league that consisted of mostly cis-women?

Yes, you would find such a league. But it would only exist at the recreational/amateur level. (This is assuming the skill level option. The hormone level option might produce a different result.)

The sex-segregated sports system creates two distinct tracks from beginning amateur all the way up to elite professional. The professional level is dependent on either viewership or sponsorship (which is also dependent on viewership). Right now, people will watch the upper levels of both tracks (NBA/WNBA) or the upper levels of the two amateur tracks (NCAAM/NCAAW). Granted, there is a larger audience for the men's track.

The next tier down are minor or developmental leagues for the pros or Division 3 college for the amateur track. A few people watch these. But on the pro side, they are more of a training or test league for the top level. So they are subsidized by the top tier. On the amateur side, Division 3 doesn't include scholarships. There is a much smaller audience. Mostly parents, students, and alumni.

If you did a skill level track, nearly all of the people who benefit monetarily, either with paying careers or scholarships, will be male. On the pro-level at least, it's already much more rewarding on the men's track than the women's. (Title IX requires equal numbers of scholarships, I think.)

There is a market for the top of the women's track because people see it as the best of the best women and don't compare them directly to the men. If you make it a skill level, the women start appearing several levels down, and are mixed with mediocre men. The audience isn't going to watch Tier 1 and Tier, say, 4. They will watch tier 1 and maybe a little bit of tier 2. No viewers, no league revenue, no sponsorships, and no money to pay female athletes.

On a recreational level, sure. Who cares, they are all there to have fun, right? But planning a park district recreational program that served as many women as men would be a little challenging.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I wasn't that angry before, but I'm certainly getting that way when people like you won't listen to what I say. For the final goddamn time, I am not going to answer that question!

Why? Outside of just staying angry what possible use does NOT clarifying the entire core principle you claim to be so up in arms about get you?

I'm sorry but "You're a bigot because you won't accept the thing I'm angry that you even ask me to clarify" is a very shaky moral high ground you've built for yourself there.

So your argument is I'm a bigot because I want to know what you mean by "woman" when demanding to be seen as a woman? That's really where you are taking this?

I'm here, rationally and calmly asking you to please help me understand what you are trying to say so I can help. And this is your response?

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

It's nothing personal, I just don't answer that question at all.

It's been my experience that people trying to demand that we transpeople define what it is to be a "man" or "woman" just want to inevitably twist and turn it against us. It's a trap that I'm not stepping into.

There is no possible answer that satisfies anyone, so I just don't answer the question.

I get that, but how do you expect anyone to understand what you actually mean when you say you're a woman? If I don't know what definition of woman I should be understanding you mean, I won't know what you mean. It would be as if you said, "I am a kunzorenplat."

[TomB]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again since people are missing my follow-up post.

- "What makes sports fans happy" only applies to sports, it shouldn't be used as a litmus test for wider society.

- Sports fans are never happy.

True on both points.

Competitive sports and access to locker rooms/bathrooms are separate issues. I think these threads were initially referring to sports, specifically, but that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I wasn't that angry before, but I'm certainly getting that way when people like you won't listen to what I say. For the final goddamn time, I am not going to answer that question!

You and the others here who are also asking have no desire to "understand" us at all, just to put us in our place based on your preconceived notions.



No, you have provided many other reasons for that.

Not really sure how getting angry on an anonymous forum would have any point, but I think you might want to rethink your post.

"You and the others here who are also asking have no desire to "understand" us at all, "

And realise people wouldn't be asking if they had no desire to understand your points.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

It's nothing personal, I just don't answer that question at all.

You are using a radically different definition of the word than most other people, you are basing your argument on that definition as if it should be universally accepted, but you won't tell anyone what it is.

Can you imagine any possible reason that other people might not be willing to accept your arguments under such conditions?

Quote:

It's been my experience that people trying to demand that we transpeople define what it is to be a "man" or "woman" just want to inevitably twist and turn it against us. It's a trap that I'm not stepping into.

It's been my experience that people who refuse to define their terms are playing motte and bailey games with word definitions.

Quote:

There is no possible answer that satisfies anyone, so I just don't answer the question.

It doesn't matter if your definition satisfies anyone. That's not the point of offering it. The point is so people can understand what it is you're actually saying. You provide a definition, and that's the definition you use. Nobody can claim that your definition is wrong, because you are the only authority on what it is that you mean. People may argue that your definition is non-standard and not generally accepted, but we already know that's the case, withholding it isn't preventing that judgment. The only risk (and it's not really a risk at all) is that people won't accept your argument based on that definition. But they aren't going to accept your argument if they don't even know what the definition you're using is.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I wasn't that angry before, but I'm certainly getting that way when people like you won't listen to what I say. For the final goddamn time, I am not going to answer that question!

This seems... self-contradictory. How can anyone listen to an answer that you refuse to provide?

Or have you confused listening with agreement? Because they aren't the same thing at all.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Paul2

It would be as if you said, "I am a kunzorenplat."

Your mom's a kunzorenplat!

(Sorry)

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Your mom's a kunzorenplat!

(Sorry)

She may well have been. She and my father were the ones who gave me the chance to hear the word on their Tom Lehrer record. Damn, I can't remember which song (and I have memorized all of them, within practical limits).

My spelling may be off for that made-up word that only exists on audio.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This seems... self-contradictory. How can anyone listen to an answer that you refuse to provide?

Or have you confused listening with agreement? Because they aren't the same thing at all.

She really is a woman!

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by Paul2

She may well have been. She and my father were the ones who gave me the chance to hear the word on their Tom Lehrer record. Damn, I can't remember which song (and I have memorized all of them, within practical limits).

My spelling may be off for that made-up word that only exists on audio.

Could it have been Bob Newhart? A google search for your word brings me to:

Quote:

gazorninplat

Random word typed by a monkey that was otherwise showing promise in an experiment to prove the infinite monkey theorem. Attributed to Bob Newhart who created this word for his infinite monkeys comedy sketch from 1960.
To be or not to be, that is the gazorninplat

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

She really is a woman!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

That is quite funny tbf

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

...to put us in our place based on your preconceived notions.

You mean preconceived and idiotic notions, like saying women can train harder to compete against men in sports?

The irrational behaviour is all on your side and you have put yourself in that place entirely on your own.

You should try to find someone independent to read this thread, where people have shown a willingness to accept some change, while you yourself display nothing but an inflexible and selfish attitude.

Like all squeaky wheels, nimbys and other forms of low-life, the trans lobby wants to have its own way and **** what anyone else thinks.

The saddest news is, you've personally not just displayed that, but you've also turned off people who could be allies.

And then you have the nerve to insult JK Rowling and others for speaking against the complete selfishness and stupidity of the trans lobby.

Well played.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Butter!

Yes, and that's why I did try to emphasize that I don't know whether it would work or not. I don't like to get too far into the sports debate, because I admit that I know nothing. I'm not a sports fan, but I'm also not a sports hater. I defend sports against their haters, in fact. I think they're an important part of human culture, down through the ages. I would like a solution that worked for most people.

Skill leagues are generally said to be a bad solution by sports fans. Would that be very different from the way things are now, though? Wouldn't we still end up with a league that consisted of mostly cis-women?

There is a wide variety of a skill within a group and that is fine when it comes from practice and training. When you throw in a group that are immediately superior based on nothing but genetics regardless of time and training (Kramer in a kid's karate class comes to mind.) the fairness is gone.

I've brought up the point before, why not just put all trans-athletes in with men. The distribution will be much more even. You will have the Caitlyn Jenners (very few of them) still winning decathlons, you'll have trans-women distributed downwards based on skill and ability, and you will have trans-males clustered toward the bottom.

Women are a special group based on genetics and the only fair thing to do is to have them compete against each other unless they choose to join men's leagues.

To me that's all fair but we never hear that suggested. What we hear, and always from those with the better genetics or higher levels of male hormones is they want to compete against women. In my opinion it is nothing more than a sorry excuse to gain an unfair advantage. Punching down.

For years everyone told women that if they wanted to play they should make their own leagues and events. They did. And now they are being told that they must accommodate people with an unfair advantage in the very leagues they created. Why is no one suggesting that trans-people create their own leagues and events where they can compete fairly. Why aren't trans-people embracing the equality of the idea? The reasons are; It's hard work, there aren't enough athletes to make it worthwhile (just enough to screw things up for women athletes), and very few would watch.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by qayak

I've brought up the point before, why not just put all trans-athletes in with men.

Because then you don't accept trans-women as "REAL WOMEN (Trademark, Patent Pending)" and that's a problem.

But again the more we discuss this the less I know what anyone involved actually wants.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

Could it have been Bob Newhart? A google search for your word brings me to:

OMG, you're right. No wonder by Tom Lehrer skills were failing like they never had before. Thanks!

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I called them TERFs because that's the ideology they spout. I don't mean it as "bitch", but since that is a typical attribute of TERFs, one follows the other.



I've made this clear in the past to others. No.



I absolutely believe that, and it is not a radical idea since we have had Self ID here in California for a while now: https://www.courts.ca.gov/25798.htm

I don't care about fraudulent claims. They are rare and shouldn't affect the laws that affect us. They will be dealt with if they come up. Otherwise it is just not an issue big enough for me to bother with.

Yes. It appears that in this thread (and in real life) there's this big "reefer madness"-style fear being spread around that straight cismen are going to start self-ID'ing as women in order to be able to infiltrate women-only spaces and (presumably) say or do things to harm the ciswomen within those spaces.

Firstly, I (and I presume you also), would like to see actual evidence that this either a) is a problem right now, or b) is forecast to be a problem in the future. I think I can attach a high degree of confidence that it's virtually non-existent right now*, and nor do I forsee it becoming much more than that in the future.

And I'll explain why: the very small proportion of straight cismen who harbour desires to harass (and worse) ciswomen are driven primarily by a desire to exercise power/domination - sexually and physically - over ciswomen. And a necessary component of this is the desire to present themselves as "red-blooded" alpha males.

So therefore, the very notion - even if it's no more than hypothetical - of gaining entry to these women-only spaces by virtue of pretending to be a transwoman.... is anathema to the (very small proportion) of straight cismen who might seek to do such things.

Anyhoo.... back to your regular programming


(Ohhhh and for the avoidance of any lingering doubt: in my previous two posts within this current thread, where I was writing in italics, those italicised passages categorically did not represent my own views. Keen-eyed readers might have noticed that I was re-presenting the argument of the poster to whose post I was responding - and countering their position by showing just how ludicrous (and offensive) their claims would sound if they were applied to another social/sexual minority group (eg gay men). I thought I'd made it very clear (not least by the word-for-word repetition, and the use of italics) that I was employing a rhetorical device, as opposed to stating my own beliefs. But obviously that still was not clear enough for some....)


* I certainly don't ever recall having read/heard anything about straight cismen using the "transwoman" ruse to enter women-only spaces (eg sports centre changing rooms**, women's refuges, etc) to commit criminal acts. If anyone here does have such historical evidence, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

** And it's worth remembering that wrt many women-only spaces (notably sports/swimming changing rooms), any straight cisman could walk through the unlocked door at will at any time anyhow. The perceived threat to ciswomen in such spaces is neither lessened nor heightened by allowing transwomen to use them.

[8enotto]

Lucha libre in Mexico has successfully mixed men and women in the show. But it's obvious that the women don't do the same tricks or receive the same abuse as the men.

In one, the AAA organization, there are two obvious transwomen that do play a lot harder than the actual women.

Nobody makes any distinction as they are all cartoon character types in a practiced roadshow. There is fairness and equality all rolled into one tiny subculture. They can't really hurt each other as the show would be disrupted and made it work seamlessly for the fans.

Success

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Yes. It appears that in this thread (and in real life) there's this big "reefer madness"-style fear being spread around that straight cismen are going to start self-ID'ing as women in order to be able to infiltrate women-only spaces and (presumably) say or do things to harm the ciswomen within those spaces.

Firstly, I (and I presume you also), would like to see actual evidence that this either a) is a problem right now, or b) is forecast to be a problem in the future. I think I can attach a high degree of confidence that it's virtually non-existent right now*, and nor do I forsee it becoming much more than that in the future.

And I'll explain why: the very small proportion of straight cismen who harbour desires to harass (and worse) ciswomen are driven primarily by a desire to exercise power/domination - sexually and physically - over ciswomen. And a necessary component of this is the desire to present themselves as "red-blooded" alpha males.

So therefore, the very notion - even if it's no more than hypothetical - of gaining entry to these women-only spaces by virtue of pretending to be a transwoman.... is anathema to the (very small proportion) of straight cismen who might seek to do such things.

Anyhoo.... back to your regular programming


(Ohhhh and for the avoidance of any lingering doubt: in my previous two posts within this current thread, where I was writing in italics, those italicised passages categorically did not represent my own views. Keen-eyed readers might have noticed that I was re-presenting the argument of the poster to whose post I was responding - and countering their position by showing just how ludicrous (and offensive) their claims would sound if they were applied to another social/sexual minority group (eg gay men). I thought I'd made it very clear (not least by the word-for-word repetition, and the use of italics) that I was employing a rhetorical device, as opposed to stating my own beliefs. But obviously that still was not clear enough for some....)


* I certainly don't ever recall having read/heard anything about straight cismen using the "transwoman" ruse to enter women-only spaces (eg sports centre changing rooms**, women's refuges, etc) to commit criminal acts. If anyone here does have such historical evidence, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

** And it's worth remembering that wrt many women-only spaces (notably sports/swimming changing rooms), any straight cisman could walk through the unlocked door at will at any time anyhow. The perceived threat to ciswomen in such spaces is neither lessened nor heightened by allowing transwomen to use them.

I know you struggle with this concept.

I don't know why as you seem to grasp the sensitivities of trans women.

But you seem to not be able to grasp the issue of a vast number of older females and young females just not being comfortable with some male waving his donger around in a changing room because they feel female in their head, while they are trying to get dressed.

How about addressing this issue, rather than going on about threats?

Yes apparently a miniscule amount of males who think they are female get stressed in male changing rooms.

A lot more females feel stressed with males in their changing rooms.

There are two sides. I get you are more worried about the extreme minority over all other females comfort, but at least try to take both into your thinking.

I personally see no viable outcome, without every single one being some self contained cubicle, which isn't going to happen retrospectively as it is too expensive.

In the interim everyone is just welcome to use the dudes as we tend not to give a ****.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Yes. It appears that in this thread (and in real life) there's this big "reefer madness"-style fear being spread around that straight cismen are going to start self-ID'ing as women in order to be able to infiltrate women-only spaces and (presumably) say or do things to harm the ciswomen within those spaces.

Yet, we know this happens.

I'm glad you're prepared to wave that concern away, but you're not a woman, so what you think is less than relevant.

Actual women aren't comfortable with the idea, and given Boudicca's insane rants on her "rights", I don't blame them one bit.

[JoeMorgue]

It's been 5 threads now of

"Okay I have a questi-"

"Let me stop you there and complain about moral panics over men poising as women to be peeping toms..."

The fact that bigotry and fear against trans people doesn't mean no valid question exists in the entire discussion.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

It's been 5 threads now of

"Okay I have a questi-"

"Let me stop you there and complain about moral panics over men poising as women to be peeping toms..."

The fact that bigotry and fear against trans people doesn't mean no valid question exists in the entire discussion.

For the 1 thousandth and 12th time probably. You seem to miss the point that a lot of women are just not comfortable getting changed next to males who think the are chicks in their head, waving their willies round.

Yes I get you think trans women's feelings trump this, but either way one lot are going to be sensitive over the outcome.

Personally think you should probably go with the one with the most people being made uncomfortable, feel comfortable.

This doesn't necessarily relate to any threat of harm.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by cullennz

For the 1 thousandth and 12th time probably. You seem to miss the point that a lot of women are just not comfortable getting changed next to males who think the are chicks in their head, waving their willies round.

Yes I get you think trans women's feelings trump this, but either way one lot are going to be sensitive over the outcome.

Personally think you should probably go with the one with the most people being made uncomfortable, feel comfortable.

This doesn't necessarily relate to any threat of harm.

*Looks to my left... looks to my right...*

Oh you're talking to me. I'm really confused because I've never said anything even resembling anything like that.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

*Looks to my left... looks to my right...*

Oh you're talking to me. I'm really confused because I've never said anything even resembling anything like that.

Sorry

It is my fault. This whole thread combined is getting a bit complicated.

Lol

[Venom]

The transsexual sports debate has really forced advocates to confront the equivocation of I feel like a woman to I'm an actual real 100 percent genuine woman because I feel like a woman.