Current Affairs Gender Nonsence

[Dymak]

Yes, but what if the science tells them that they are allowed to participate in the sport, the rules given by experts in that particular sport?

What if somebody gaining access to a different set of rights is not actually eroding the rights of anybody else?

This is the logic that I just cannot get on board with. It is not a black and white conversation. A trans woman obtains the right of a woman, can you explain how that will erode the rights of women?

Now, we get into the grey area, the loopholes and the abuse of the system. Well, this is not new and stopping valid concerns, valid claims of rights abuse because there may be loopholes is, again, just not the right way (in my humble opinion) to go about this, or any other, issue.

This is where I disagree, mate. I don't think there is a grey area. I don't think it is possible for a man to morph into a woman no matter how much medical intervention has taken place to try and facilitate the ideology.

 

[Dymak]

But you are quite clearly bothered about something that you yourself have said you don’t know whether it is happening or not.

I’m against loads of legislations that don’t exist too.

Men are infiltrating women's sports, and I am bothered by this, yes. I'm also bothered by the enforcement of the ideology onto the rest of society, including primary schools. I've already made it clear that I am bothered by that.

It's just quite annoying when people try to twist that into me being bothered by trans people per se, because it's just not true.

 

[Wizard]

Men are infiltrating women's sports, and I am bothered by this, yes. I'm also bothered by the enforcement of the ideology onto the rest of society, including primary schools. I've already made it clear that I am bothered by that.

It's just quite annoying when people try to twist that into me being bothered by trans people per se, because it's just not true.

Both of my replies to you are based on your stance on trans people in sport. I haven’t once suggested you are against trans people in general.

 

[Dymak]

Both of my replies to you are based on your stance on trans people in sport. I haven’t once suggested you are against trans people in general.

Okay, fair enough. I am bothered my men infiltrating women's sports, yes.

 

[d34noj]

She’s a woman last I heard.

Same intersex condition as Caster Semenya, which only affects males - 46 XY 5-ARD (5-alpha-reductase deficiency).

 

[bluestevon]

Apart from Imane Khelif, no - however that's an entirely different conversation as he/she is intersex not trans.

There's confusion due to the disclosure of private medical Information being protected about exactly what happened

Khelifs own statements usually follow the simple, born a woman, lived a woman, still a woman format, the other boxer the Thai gold medalist at 'i think' flyweight largely went unnoticed in comparison interestingly - probably for a few reasons. Although both cases are pretty much the same.

To the best of my ability to understand what happened, it seems that they tested as having xy chromosomes - but with female 'parts' - so basically a very rare occurrence of being intersex. Khelifs threatened legal action - focused on the release of medical records btw, so suggests the information leaked was true.
Intersex is that complicated an issue though that it's hard to compute what physical advantage they possessed due to genetics - not buying the eye test 'you can see it's a man just by looming at them crap either'

Khelifs case seems to have been the focus of the media for a few reasons over the Thai fighter (who actually has been far more dominant throughout their career unlike Khelifs).
First she was banned by the Russian led IBA - after she defeated an unbeaten Russian boxer (was decked though) so got portrayed as revenge - although this ignores the Thai boxer also got banned same testing during the tournament with no hint of it being revenge etc.
Second the Italian female boxer broke down in tears and made clear state ebts straight after the fight in the ring about it, hard to ignore that visible a thing.
Neither boxer seems to have appealed the ban or contested the testing procedure at the time also.

Were they men fighting women, definitely not, were they women fighting women again in the strictest sense - it's not clear - if they possessed male biological advantages (bone density, increased lung capacity, reach, body fat ratio etc) then yes it's unfair and they should be prohibited from women boxing tournaments.

Easy way to resolve it though would have been for either women to submit to tests with the results publicly revealed - not doing so shows there's something to hide.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

That link summary says "The second ever"

Make of that what you will.

It does, and is two too many.

 

[d34noj]

There's confusion due to the disclosure of private medical Information being protected about exactly what happened

Khelifs own statements usually follow the simple, born a woman, lived a woman, still a woman format, the other boxer the Thai gold medalist at 'i think' flyweight largely went unnoticed in comparison interestingly - probably for a few reasons. Although both cases are pretty much the same.

To the best of my ability to understand what happened, it seems that they tested as having xy chromosomes - but with female 'parts' - so basically a very rare occurrence of being intersex. Khelifs threatened legal action - focused on the release of medical records btw, so suggests the information leaked was true.
Intersex is that complicated an issue though that it's hard to compute what physical advantage they possessed due to genetics - not buying the eye test 'you can see it's a man just by looming at them crap either'

Khelifs case seems to have been the focus of the media for a few reasons over the Thai fighter (who actually has been far more dominant throughout their career unlike Khelifs).
First she was banned by the Russian led IBA - after she defeated an unbeaten Russian boxer (was decked though) so got portrayed as revenge - although this ignores the Thai boxer also got banned same testing during the tournament with no hint of it being revenge etc.
Second the Italian female boxer broke down in tears and made clear state ebts straight after the fight in the ring about it, hard to ignore that visible a thing.
Neither boxer seems to have appealed the ban or contested the testing procedure at the time also.

Were they men fighting women, definitely not, were they women fighting women again in the strictest sense - it's not clear - if they possessed male biological advantages (bone density, increased lung capacity, reach, body fat ratio etc) then yes it's unfair and they should be prohibited from women boxing tournaments.

Easy way to resolve it though would have been for either women to submit to tests with the results publicly revealed - not doing so shows there's something to hide.

Internal testes, micropenis resembling a clitoris. That's the general appearance for someone with 46 XY 5-ARD. Appears female at birth and usually becomes apparent at puberty.

Everything about Khelif is male apart from fully formed external genitals.

 

[wandyr79]

This is where I disagree, mate. I don't think there is a grey area. I don't think it is possible for a man to morph into a woman no matter how much medical intervention has taken place to try and facilitate the ideology.

Hence why my post earlier talked about tone. I am certainly not calling you a transphobe but this is the kind of tone and words that they use.

I think the term morph, in this context comes across as very passive aggressive in the debate as to whether we should apply human rights to people who don't feel the same as somebody else. I don't believe they can morph either, I believe that through a lot of procedures and a lot of pain they can be comfortable in their own skin.

Men are infiltrating women's sports, and I am bothered by this, yes. I'm also bothered by the enforcement of the ideology onto the rest of society, including primary schools. I've already made it clear that I am bothered by that.

It's just quite annoying when people try to twist that into me being bothered by trans people per se, because it's just not true.

You keep in saying 'ideology' a lot. As if it was some wished up kind of religion. It is completely normal and it is not some kind if ideology to want to feel like a normal person (whatever normal is in the context of the word).

You are not bothered by trans people but you are bothered by everything they stand for, their 'ideology'. Is that accurate? I am sorry but you cannot deny that if that is the case then people may see it as a bit transphobic. Another way to put it may be that it comes across as the fact that you have no problem with the person as long as they conform to what you believe they should be and how they should live their life.

I can't speak for everybody else but I am not trying to twist your words, I am trying to understand why you are using the terms you are using and the context in which you are saying them, as the 'I am not bothered by the people, just what they are saying and hypothetically doing bothers me' context is confusing me.

 

[Dymak]

Hence why my post earlier talked about tone. I am certainly not calling you a transphobe but this is the kind if tone and words that they use.

I think the term morph, in this context comes across as very passive aggressive in the debate as to whether we should apply human rights to people who don't feel the same as somebody else. I don't believe they can morph either, I believe that through a lot of procedures and a lot of pain they can be comfortable in their own skin.



You keep in saying 'ideology' a lot. As if it was some wished up kind of religion. It is completely normal and it is not some kind if ideology to want to feel like a normal person (whatever normal is in the context of the word).

You are not bothered by trans people but you are bothered for everything they stand for their 'ideology'. Is that accurate? I am sorry but you cannot deny that if that is the case then people may see it as a bit transphobic. Another way to put it may be that it comes across as the fact that you have no problem with the person as long as they conform to what you believe they should be and be able to live their life.

I can't speak for everybody else but I am not trying to twist your words, I am trying to understand why you are using the terms you are using and the context in which you are saying as the 'I am not bothered by the people, just what they are saying and hypothetically doing bothers me' context is confusing me.

You're referring to the crux of the matter here. If trans people were protesting social exclusion, then I would agree with them. But a section of the trans activists are demanding more than that! They aren't demanding trans rights, they are demanding women's rights, and this is based upon an ideology that BELIEVES it is possible to change sex. If you're going to maintain that being trans involves morphing into the opposite sex, rather than just being a sexuality or a personality, then that is an ideology, and I don't think people should be forced to accept it.

Some of you will be aware of the social model of disability. Unfortunately, I am becoming all too aware of this from a personal perspective rather than an academic perspective these days, and it's only going to get worse. Anyway, I can see how society is not organised to accommodate some of the needs of trans people in the same way as it isn't fully organised to accommodate disabled people. For example, my understanding is that there is not yet any trans category in sports, but I think there really needs to be. That's what accommodating trans people would actually look like.

But you don't accommodate people that are disabled by pretending they are not disabled, this wouldn't solve anything at all. Instead, society needs to acknowledge the disability and accommodate the disabled persons needs. Trans people are trans, and it wrecks my head the way some people try to make out as if there is something controversial in stating that. It's almost like there is an objection to the trans identity itself. We will get nowhere if this continues.

 

[wandyr79]

You're referring to the crux of the matter here. If trans people were protesting social exclusion, then I would agree with them. But a section of the trans activists are demanding more than that! They aren't demanding trans rights, they are demanding women's rights, and this is based upon an ideology that BELIEVES it is possible to change sex. If you're going to maintain that being trans involves morphing into the opposite sex, rather than just being a sexuality or a personality, then that is an ideology, and I don't think people should be forced to accept it.

Some of you will be aware of the social model of disability. Unfortunately, I am becoming all too aware of this from a personal perspective rather than an academic perspective these days, and it's only going to get worse. Anyway, I can see how society is not organised to accommodate some of the needs of trans people in the same way as it isn't fully organised to accommodate disabled people. For example, my understanding is that there is not yet any trans category in sports, but I think there really needs to be. That's what accommodating trans people would actually look like.

But you don't accommodate people that are disabled by pretending they are not disabled, this wouldn't solve anything at all. Instead, society needs to acknowledge the disability and accommodate the disabled persons needs. Trans people are trans, and it wrecks my head the way some people try to make out as if there is something controversial in stating that. It's almost like there is an objection to the trans identity itself. We will get nowhere if this continues.

Thanks for putting the meat on the bones, all I was seeing was very vague 'I don't believe in the ideology' and leaving it at that. It is certainly not controversial saying they are trans, no more than saying I am a white male. You could say I am just white or just a male and both would be true. If you said to a trans woman/man that they are trans I very much doubt there would be much recourse. It is also no skin off my teeth to call them a woman or a man, doesn't affect my life to do that and it may have the added fact that you have just made somebodies day by respecting them enough to do that.

I really don't have a horse in the sports argument, as I have mentioned, I just don't have any knowledge in the individual biological fairness requirements in any of the sports to have an opinion.

There are so many areas of legalities and society that can be discussed here, it would be impossible to go through them all. I just don't see it as a black and white issue.

If a legal paper on their rights was put in front of me, and I understood it, more than likely I would agree with some aspects and disagree with other aspects.

I am just on the side of humanity rather than a hard and fast rule in society where we must tell trans people that they are not what they feel as a default rule, they are not something that they have spent thousands on and gone through a lot of pain and anguish for.

 

[Dymak]

Thanks for putting the meat on the bones, all I was seeing was very vague 'I don't believe in the ideology' and leaving it at that. It is certainly not controversial saying they are trans, no more than saying I am a white male. You could say I am just white or just a male and both would be true. If you said to a trans woman/man that they are trans I very much doubt there would be much recourse. It is also no skin off my teeth to call them a woman or a man, doesn't affect my life to do that and it may have the added fact that you have just made somebodies day by respecting them enough to do that.

I really don't have a horse in the sports argument, as I have mentioned, I just don't have any knowledge in the individual biological fairness requirements in any of the sports to have an opinion.

There are so many areas of legalities and society that can be discussed here, it would be impossible to go through them all. I just don't see it as a black and white issue.

If a legal paper on their rights was put in front of me, and I understood it, more than likely I would agree with some aspects and disagree with other aspects.

I am just on the side of humanity rather than a hard and fast rule in society where we must tell trans people that they are not what they feel as a default rule, they are not something that they have spent thousands on and gone through a lot of pain and anguish for.

Fair enough mate, and I will aim to bow out here.

But I will say that stating that someone is trans, rather than accepting the ‘fact’ that have changed sex, actually gets people into a lot of trouble. People have been sacked for failing to agree with this, and they have had to go all the way to the courts for their sacking to be ruled unlawful.

There’s no sign of this stopping.

 

[wandyr79]

Fair enough mate, and I will aim to bow out here.

But I will say that stating that someone is trans, rather than accepting the ‘fact’ that have changed sex, actually gets people into a lot of trouble. People have been sacked for failing to agree with this, and they have had to go all the way to the courts for their sacking to be ruled unlawful.

There’s no sign of this stopping.

That is something we will definitely both agree is wrong.

 

[Xizor]

I've blocked all these numbskulls, but can anyone tell me if we're still morphin' ?

I've always wondered, is this how gender reassignment surgery starts?

 

[bluestevon]

Yes, but what if the science tells them that they are allowed to participate in the sport, the rules given by experts in that particular sport?

What if somebody gaining access to a different set of rights is not actually eroding the rights of anybody else?

This is the logic that I just cannot get on board with. It is not a black and white conversation. A trans woman obtains the right of a woman, can you explain how that will erode the rights of women?

Now, we get into the grey area, the loopholes and the abuse of the system. Well, this is not new and stopping valid concerns, valid claims of rights abuse because there may be loopholes is, again, just not the right way (in my humble opinion) to go about this, or any other, issue.

Don't you think it's pretty obvious that one of these athletes has an inordinate advantage over the others?