One could try but it’s meagre picking grounds when it comes to a handsome devil like Linehan.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
sorry, what's ridiculous about it exactly?
and yes, i do think racism, like sexism, homophobia and transphobia is bigoted behaviour. i think you'll find most people do.
edit: also, there is no 'trans debate'. what you're talking about is transphobia.
pic not showing up for me!
discussing the nuances of what defines a real biological women with a vagina is not transphobia.
It does assume sex is a binary, which it isn't.
URL time:
https://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions/vaginal-agenesis
https://www.livescience.com/60162-born-without-vagina-mrkh-syndrome.html
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001497.htm
Also:
Scientific American – Sex Redefined
Sapiens – Rejecting the Sex Binary
Massive Sci – Sex isn’t binary, and we should stop acting like it is
https://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions/vaginal-agenesis
https://www.livescience.com/60162-born-without-vagina-mrkh-syndrome.html
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001497.htm
Also:
Scientific American – Sex Redefined
Sapiens – Rejecting the Sex Binary
Massive Sci – Sex isn’t binary, and we should stop acting like it is
What's your view of Posie Parker?
It’s the “that’s the joke” meme. He’s making a (crap) joke about having to learn photoshop when he knows everyone who sees the tweet will know exactly how those images were really made.
No idea who he/she is.
Ok. Rowling knows very well who she is, and is a fan. For some highlights, Parker pretends to be an ally of lesbians while she works with the anti-gay hate group American College of Pediatricians who champions conversion therapy. She is a "feminist" who says that giving up the right to abortion is no problem if it helps in the fight against trans people. She's someone who calls for men to arm themselves and enter women's bathrooms in an effort to stop trans women from using women's bathrooms. This is a part of Rowling's "different opinions" about trans people.
What's your opinion on Magdalen Berns? Rowling is a fan, it's a part of her "different opinions" about trans people. Do you agree with them?
I'll have to dig up some material from them both!
Feel free to look up Adam Preston as well, another ally.
I find this in the topic of trans a bit disingenuous.
In mammalian physiology, there are only two genders (re: two sexes). For humans, things such as vaginal agenesis, mutations, intersex etc are abnormalities that sit outside of that paradigm. A woman born without a vagina is an abnormality to the usual model (as if things were fully developed in utero, she would have a vagina). Differing levels of hormones, mutations to certain genes has a profound impact on whether the fetus is born a male or female (or somewhere in between) but again, these aren't the norm. (Finger in the air) - I'd say that we're talking about maybe 2-3% of the world's population that fit into this category.
Trans people - ie, people born with one type of sex and then transition later in life, is an altogether different discussion.
Edit: after some quick googling...
How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling - PubMed (nih.gov)
For intersex as defined in the quote above, we're specifically talking about 0.018% in the world's population.
fair enough, i wasn't giving him enough credit for making the joke then. feels like he forgot about humour completely about 10 years ago
To be fair, this (deliberately) convolutes the debate. I think only around 0.001%-0.05% of people have ambiguous genitals, while around 0.5% of people are trans (1.5% for young adults). So, the vast majority of trans people do not have ambiguos genitals and biologically are not what could be considered non-binary. Their self-identified gender is different to their biological sex, but their biological sex is not ambiguous.
you seem to be conflating sex and gender.
of course trans women weren't born with a vagina. if their gender identity matched their sex they wouldn't be trans.
I agree, biological sex is different to gender.
Arguably a lot longer than 10 years ago. Been a fairly steep downhill trend since Father Ted.
The issue seems to be whether biological sex including physiological and society differences including advantages, disadvantages and vulnerabilities experienced by those based on their biological sex can just be overridden by someone declaring themselves that they no longer apply
The whole thread exudes ironic male privilege, villifying women for being afraid of risk posed by male-bodied people whilst pretending the whole debate is nothing more than some silly Tweets by a has-been comedy writer.
Bunch of men agreeing that a women saying single sex spaces should be reserved for those of a particular sex if a stupid old, haggard, mentalist TERF whore. Nothing to see here, of course.
Last edited:
Women are more supporting of trans people than men are.
I think the point being made was that this was supposed to be the safe one - when there are permanent changes, the parents still have power. And some trans people argued at that time (I didn't think they were right), that this distinction is a false one since the real aim of people making these arguments and writing these laws is to basically make trans people non-existent.
And I think that's what's happening in that NYT article. The schools are not doing anything medical, but are still being criticised by proud liberals (let's not even go to the conservative opposition). And the very first example in that article explains why:
"He had tried to come out to his parents before, he said, but they didn’t take it seriously, which is why he asked his school for support."
...
she used my trigger word...
I think a policy where they respect a student's wishes without making permanent changes (again, how is this different from hiding if a gay person is out) is nuanced.
...
exactly the slippery slope i thought was wrong. those random trans stalinists i follow are vindicated.
...
how magnanimous!
...
anyway thankfully something is being done about it!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...ng-care-minors-re-elected-president-rcna68461
Trump vows to 'stop' gender-affirming care for minors if re-elected president
Trump said he would also push schools to “promote positive education about the nuclear family” and “the roles of mothers and fathers."
Gender-affirming care, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, “consists of an array of services that may include medical, surgical, mental health, and non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary people.”
He said he would also prohibit any federal agency from working to “promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age," not just for minors.
...
My basic logic is that, since this is the opposition, my personal nuanced debate-club feelings are worth nothing. There are two sides here.
horrific stuff from Trump, as to be expected.
When will people realise that biology and identity are not mutually exclusive.
Let people be who they want to be and accept them for their choice, for there is no universal wisdom around these matters. All of us are on our own quest for peace and happiness. One journey isn’t any more superior than the other.
Let people be who they want to be and accept them for their choice, for there is no universal wisdom around these matters. All of us are on our own quest for peace and happiness. One journey isn’t any more superior than the other.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I had to tell my son it was OK for him not to have to respect a person's point of view. Respect their right to their point of view, but the opinion itself should get the beating it deserves.
Last edited:
UK Athletics wants open category for male and transgender athletes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/64514819
UK Athletics wants a change in legislation to ensure the women's category is lawfully reserved for competitors who are recorded female at birth.
The governing body says all transgender athletes should be allowed to compete with men in an open category.
Chair Ian Beattie said the governing body wanted athletics to be a "welcoming environment for all", but added it had a responsibility to "ensure fairness" in women's competition.
"We would appeal to all those engaged in this discussion online to share their thoughts in a way that is respectful of the differing opinions and sensitive nature of the debate," said Beattie.
UKA disagrees with the use of testosterone suppression for transgender women as there is "currently no scientifically robust, independent research showing that all male performance advantage is eliminated".
UKA added it has seen "no evidence that it is safe for transgender women to reduce their hormonal levels by testosterone suppression", and that there is "insufficient research to understand the effects on transgender women if such testosterone suppression is carried out suddenly".
Therefore it would instead like to reserve the female category for those who were recorded female at birth and have not undergone transition.
UKA does not believe the 'sporting exemption' introduced in the Equalities Act of 2010 allows them to lawfully exclude transgender women in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate from competing.
BBC Sport understands the government disagrees with UK Athletics' stance that the law does not allow it to ban transgender women from female events on fairness grounds.
It believes the 2010 Equality Act does allow sports to protect the female category.
---
Make their suggestion make sense. They already can and have changed the rules to limit trans participation.
And an 'open' category? So trans men, trans women and cis men? Or will trans men have to compete with women because they were recorded female at birth?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/64514819
UK Athletics wants a change in legislation to ensure the women's category is lawfully reserved for competitors who are recorded female at birth.
The governing body says all transgender athletes should be allowed to compete with men in an open category.
Chair Ian Beattie said the governing body wanted athletics to be a "welcoming environment for all", but added it had a responsibility to "ensure fairness" in women's competition.
"We would appeal to all those engaged in this discussion online to share their thoughts in a way that is respectful of the differing opinions and sensitive nature of the debate," said Beattie.
UKA disagrees with the use of testosterone suppression for transgender women as there is "currently no scientifically robust, independent research showing that all male performance advantage is eliminated".
UKA added it has seen "no evidence that it is safe for transgender women to reduce their hormonal levels by testosterone suppression", and that there is "insufficient research to understand the effects on transgender women if such testosterone suppression is carried out suddenly".
Therefore it would instead like to reserve the female category for those who were recorded female at birth and have not undergone transition.
UKA does not believe the 'sporting exemption' introduced in the Equalities Act of 2010 allows them to lawfully exclude transgender women in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate from competing.
BBC Sport understands the government disagrees with UK Athletics' stance that the law does not allow it to ban transgender women from female events on fairness grounds.
It believes the 2010 Equality Act does allow sports to protect the female category.
---
Make their suggestion make sense. They already can and have changed the rules to limit trans participation.
And an 'open' category? So trans men, trans women and cis men? Or will trans men have to compete with women because they were recorded female at birth?
An open category makes the most sense. You retain the integrity of fair competition whilst not excluding anyone from racing.
I would agree with that, while also saying that society may need to decide, in a few areas, what the rules are should the rights of one group clash with the rights of another. There should always be room for a debate about what those areas are, why and the limits, so a resolution can be found.
Do most trans men take testosterone? If so it mightn't be possible for them to compete in the female category, if they'd even want to of course. I'm guessing that they'd be eligible for a Therapeutic Use Exemption if their testosterone levels were in the allowed range for this potential open category.
Always thought that this was the cleanest way to get around the issue. It protects the integrity of female sports, and also gives trans people a place they can still compete if they wish. I know some trans individual will view it as discrimination, but you are never going to have every single individual 100% happy, and at least they can play the sports they love still this way.
I presume the rationale is that cis women are the most physically/physiologically disadvantaged, so need a protected category all to themselves.
Outside that protected category, everyone else can compete against each other.
In theory, but it's also going to be such a niche category that I guess it could end up in a scenario where the professional status of current athletes is at jeopardy due to lack of competition?
This makes me wonder how niche an existing olympic sport has to become before getting removed from the program. Like, how many transgender steeplechase competitors are there?
If they go for a third gender category then there should be some ground rules when it comes to number of competitors and the median level of said competitors.
Either you guys or me are misunderstanding the proposal. I don’t see any mention of category for trans athletes only. They would be competing in an “open” category, which also includes cis men. So not niche at all.
Ah I see. Thanks. So would there be a CIS men only category and a separate men's category that also includes all trans athletes regardless of gender? Or would the male category just be reclassified as "open" and anyone who isn't a CIS woman be categorized there? Either way, I think the likelihood of seeing trans athletes at a professional level has taken a hit with either decision, but I do also appreciate the need to protect the women's categories. I just wonder if taking each case on it's individual merit isn't still the best approach given the relatively low cases, and defining clear protocol in-regards to age-of-transition, etc.
I think that’s what they’re proposing.
My understanding is that CIS women would compete separately, and everyone else would compete together in an open category.
It is very sensible, and it would pretty much end the issue... except there is still the whole shameful debacle of some female athletes having to prove they were genuinely female at birth. Definitely need a better system for that.
Bit like chess then
Chess seperates male and female players?