RugbyRebels

No one is conflating anything. If all it takes to be a woman is to say "I'm a woman", regardless of biology, then the whole concept of womanhood becomes meaningless. All the hard earned equality that women have been working towards for decades becomes meaningless. Negating everything that women have fought so hard for could be seen as misogynistic.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Finally, the argument we all wanted to be having all along.

An I imagining this or are some of the Pacific islands actually a lot more fluid about the nature of sex/gender? I thought I’d heard that.

Mikey Brown wrote:An I imagining this or are some of the Pacific islands actually a lot more fluid about the nature of sex/gender? I thought I’d heard that.

You're not imagining it, but it does depend on how far the Christians got in the area. Traditionally, a lot of island cultures recognise three genders and that people can move between them, but our wonderful missionaries did their best to beat that tolerance out of them.

Puja

Was looking at twitter and reddit and came across this... was interesting... had not thought about a couple things indicated.

More research is being done on the sporting effects which can only be a good thing. Recent research seems to be indicating longer lasting advantages than previously suggested.

A question arises. On whom should the burden be to prove advantage or lack thereof? For me those born with male biology who transition to female need to prove that they don't have an advantage. Sport needs a definition of woman, even if society as a whole does not.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:More research is being done on the sporting effects which can only be a good thing. Recent research seems to be indicating longer lasting advantages than previously suggested.

A question arises. On whom should the burden be to prove advantage or lack thereof? For me those born with male biology who transition to female need to prove that they don't have an advantage. Sport needs a definition of woman, even if society as a whole does not.

The simplest way to run sport would be to have a single category of athlete, making no distinction between male and female. However, it's generally agreed that this would not be a good approach, since the female 50% of the population would be effectively excluded from professional sport as a result (which would be bad for them and for most sports fans, regardless of sex/gender).

But we must recognise that this is a choice, not necessarily based on anything other than a generally held feeling. So when it comes to drawing the line which divides males and females in sport - which discriminates (perfectly reasonably) against males by making them ineligible to compete with females - the precise position of the dividing line is actually arbitrary. So I would argue that the position of dividing line should be set with regard to the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Hence when deciding between the "sporting rights" of:
1) biological females,
2) those transitioning from male to female, and
3) intersex individuals,
one should take particular care to protect biological females so as not to disadvantage such a large % of the population.

Hence, those from groups 2) and 3) who can reasonably be assumed to have abilities above female ranges need to
a) bring their abilities within female ranges, and
b) provide evidence that the drugs (or procedure) they use can reasonably be expected to do so (eg through medical trials).

So I agree - the burden of proof should be on those making the transition (or with the intersex condition).
And - clearly - those NOT making a physical transition must be ineligible to compete with females.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:More research is being done on the sporting effects which can only be a good thing. Recent research seems to be indicating longer lasting advantages than previously suggested.

A question arises. On whom should the burden be to prove advantage or lack thereof? For me those born with male biology who transition to female need to prove that they don't have an advantage. Sport needs a definition of woman, even if society as a whole does not.

The simplest way to run sport would be to have a single category of athlete, making no distinction between male and female. However, it's generally agreed that this would not be a good approach, since the female 50% of the population would be effectively excluded from professional sport as a result (which would be bad for them and for most sports fans, regardless of sex/gender).

But we must recognise that this is a choice, not necessarily based on anything other than a generally held feeling. So when it comes to drawing the line which divides males and females in sport - which discriminates (perfectly reasonably) against males by making them ineligible to compete with females - the precise position of the dividing line is actually arbitrary. So I would argue that the position of dividing line should be set with regard to the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Hence when deciding between the "sporting rights" of:
1) biological females,
2) those transitioning from male to female, and
3) intersex individuals,
one should take particular care to protect biological females so as not to disadvantage such a large % of the population.

Hence, those from groups 2) and 3) who can reasonably be assumed to have abilities above female ranges need to
a) bring their abilities within female ranges, and
b) provide evidence that the drugs (or procedure) they use can reasonably be expected to do so (eg through medical trials).

So I agree - the burden of proof should be on those making the transition (or with the intersex condition).
And - clearly - those NOT making a physical transition must be ineligible to compete with females.

That is very elegantly and persuasively put.

This is why it's so important to separate sport and general life...

Professional sport needs to
A) make it as welcoming as possible to attract as many possible competitors.
B) make the competition as fair and even as possible so all* participants feel like they can win.

Therefore were going to have 2 very different ideas for general life and for pro sport.

The former is: what is important to you, the individual

The latter is: what is important to the sport.

I agree sport needs a way to test this, as it will be exploited in time. But we can't let that seep into everyday life.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:More research is being done on the sporting effects which can only be a good thing. Recent research seems to be indicating longer lasting advantages than previously suggested.

A question arises. On whom should the burden be to prove advantage or lack thereof? For me those born with male biology who transition to female need to prove that they don't have an advantage. Sport needs a definition of woman, even if society as a whole does not.

The simplest way to run sport would be to have a single category of athlete, making no distinction between male and female. However, it's generally agreed that this would not be a good approach, since the female 50% of the population would be effectively excluded from professional sport as a result (which would be bad for them and for most sports fans, regardless of sex/gender).

But we must recognise that this is a choice, not necessarily based on anything other than a generally held feeling. So when it comes to drawing the line which divides males and females in sport - which discriminates (perfectly reasonably) against males by making them ineligible to compete with females - the precise position of the dividing line is actually arbitrary. So I would argue that the position of dividing line should be set with regard to the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Hence when deciding between the "sporting rights" of:
1) biological females,
2) those transitioning from male to female, and
3) intersex individuals,
one should take particular care to protect biological females so as not to disadvantage such a large % of the population.

Hence, those from groups 2) and 3) who can reasonably be assumed to have abilities above female ranges need to
a) bring their abilities within female ranges, and
b) provide evidence that the drugs (or procedure) they use can reasonably be expected to do so (eg through medical trials).

So I agree - the burden of proof should be on those making the transition (or with the intersex condition).
And - clearly - those NOT making a physical transition must be ineligible to compete with females.

That is very elegantly and persuasively put.

Agreed. Completely wasted on this forum. What an edgelord.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:More research is being done on the sporting effects which can only be a good thing. Recent research seems to be indicating longer lasting advantages than previously suggested.

A question arises. On whom should the burden be to prove advantage or lack thereof? For me those born with male biology who transition to female need to prove that they don't have an advantage. Sport needs a definition of woman, even if society as a whole does not.

The simplest way to run sport would be to have a single category of athlete, making no distinction between male and female. However, it's generally agreed that this would not be a good approach, since the female 50% of the population would be effectively excluded from professional sport as a result (which would be bad for them and for most sports fans, regardless of sex/gender).

But we must recognise that this is a choice, not necessarily based on anything other than a generally held feeling. So when it comes to drawing the line which divides males and females in sport - which discriminates (perfectly reasonably) against males by making them ineligible to compete with females - the precise position of the dividing line is actually arbitrary. So I would argue that the position of dividing line should be set with regard to the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Hence when deciding between the "sporting rights" of:
1) biological females,
2) those transitioning from male to female, and
3) intersex individuals,
one should take particular care to protect biological females so as not to disadvantage such a large % of the population.

Hence, those from groups 2) and 3) who can reasonably be assumed to have abilities above female ranges need to
a) bring their abilities within female ranges, and
b) provide evidence that the drugs (or procedure) they use can reasonably be expected to do so (eg through medical trials).

So I agree - the burden of proof should be on those making the transition (or with the intersex condition).
And - clearly - those NOT making a physical transition must be ineligible to compete with females.

That is very elegantly and persuasively put.

Agreed - very well put.

Puja

Thank you all.

I like to offer something similar on the Brexit delayed thread, but it's fucking beyond help*.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/m ... ssion=true

This is fucking terrifying. I have an extremely bright 4 year old boy. He'd have no fucking clue what the difference is between boys and girls. Certainly not enough to decide to be a girl, or that he wasn't a boy. What the fuck is the difference at 4 anyway? This is straightforward projection by adults. A friend recently told me that something like 10% of kids at her local primary are said to be trans. There's no way that's actually real.

I don't see what's terrifying about that in the slightest. The kid was adamant that they wanted to present as a girl, what's the value in saying, "No, you've got a penis so I don't care what you say!" Raising your kid as an example seems slightly beside the point - if your kid doesn't give a shit about gender, then that's probably a good sign they're comfortable in the one that they have and so they're probably not the best example of this situation.

What's the absolute worst case scenario? The kid gets older, realises that they were wrong, and starts presenting as male again, having explored a bit more of themselves and with the added knowledge that their parents will love and support them throughout anything. Doesn't sound life-destroying to me.

Puja

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/m ... ssion=true

This is fucking terrifying. I have an extremely bright 4 year old boy. He'd have no fucking clue what the difference is between boys and girls. Certainly not enough to decide to be a girl, or that he wasn't a boy. What the fuck is the difference at 4 anyway? This is straightforward projection by adults. A friend recently told me that something like 10% of kids at her local primary are said to be trans. There's no way that's actually real.

The path to transition is not laid out on a whim. There is an extremely vigorous process leading to transition that grills psychiatric metrics prior to any actual transitional process. Projection by parents is a clear red flag, and not binding in the final decision making process. The process is most definitely not guided by anecdote.

"He wants to play with dolls so we have to call him a girl because boys don't play with dolls!!"

God forbid we can accept people for who they are. This kid wanted to be themselves but has been forced into a box by adults, apparently because he didnt fit in another adult defined box, and is in real danger of lifelong psychological issues, not to mention the physical health issues that are right around the corner, and the reaction is awww that's nice? The insanity of trans ideology in a nutshell.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:"He wants to play with dolls so we have to call him a girl because boys don't play with dolls!!"

God forbid we can accept people for who they are. This kid wanted to be themselves but has been forced into a box by adults, apparently because he didnt fit in another adult defined box, and is in real danger of lifelong psychological issues, not to mention the physical health issues that are right around the corner, and the reaction is awww that's nice? The insanity of trans ideology in a nutshell.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Or alternatively, "He said he was a girl and wanted to be a girl, but we have to call him a boy because I'm set in my ways and know everything."

God forbid that we can accept people for who they are.

Puja

It'd clearly be helpful if it grew up and grew a pair

Finally, some constructive debate in here.

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:"He wants to play with dolls so we have to call him a girl because boys don't play with dolls!!"

God forbid we can accept people for who they are. This kid wanted to be themselves but has been forced into a box by adults, apparently because he didnt fit in another adult defined box, and is in real danger of lifelong psychological issues, not to mention the physical health issues that are right around the corner, and the reaction is awww that's nice? The insanity of trans ideology in a nutshell.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Or alternatively, "He said he was a girl and wanted to be a girl, but we have to call him a boy because I'm set in my ways and know everything."

God forbid that we can accept people for who they are.

Puja

You're a tiger for punishment Puja. I'll give you that.

morepork wrote:

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:"He wants to play with dolls so we have to call him a girl because boys don't play with dolls!!"

God forbid we can accept people for who they are. This kid wanted to be themselves but has been forced into a box by adults, apparently because he didnt fit in another adult defined box, and is in real danger of lifelong psychological issues, not to mention the physical health issues that are right around the corner, and the reaction is awww that's nice? The insanity of trans ideology in a nutshell.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Or alternatively, "He said he was a girl and wanted to be a girl, but we have to call him a boy because I'm set in my ways and know everything."

God forbid that we can accept people for who they are.

Puja

You're a tiger for punishment Puja. I'll give you that.

I wondered about the god reference too, though whether Puja is quite Opus Dei I don't know

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:"He wants to play with dolls so we have to call him a girl because boys don't play with dolls!!"

God forbid we can accept people for who they are. This kid wanted to be themselves but has been forced into a box by adults, apparently because he didnt fit in another adult defined box, and is in real danger of lifelong psychological issues, not to mention the physical health issues that are right around the corner, and the reaction is awww that's nice? The insanity of trans ideology in a nutshell.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Or alternatively, "He said he was a girl and wanted to be a girl, but we have to call him a boy because I'm set in my ways and know everything."

God forbid that we can accept people for who they are.

Puja

No you're right of course, we have to shoe horn him into a box labelled girl because we're so desperate to be wokebros that we can't simply let him be a boy who wears dresses and plays with dolls, no lets ignore reality and encourage him down a lifelong path of painful and intrusive medication rather than simply acknowledge he is what he is.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:"He wants to play with dolls so we have to call him a girl because boys don't play with dolls!!"

God forbid we can accept people for who they are. This kid wanted to be themselves but has been forced into a box by adults, apparently because he didnt fit in another adult defined box, and is in real danger of lifelong psychological issues, not to mention the physical health issues that are right around the corner, and the reaction is awww that's nice? The insanity of trans ideology in a nutshell.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Or alternatively, "He said he was a girl and wanted to be a girl, but we have to call him a boy because I'm set in my ways and know everything."

God forbid that we can accept people for who they are.

Puja

No you're right of course, we have to shoe horn him into a box labelled girl because we're so desperate to be wokebros that we can't simply let him be a boy who wears dresses and plays with dolls, no lets ignore reality and encourage him down a lifelong path of painful and intrusive medication rather than simply acknowledge he is what he is.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

It looks perfectly reasonable to me. According to the article the child wanted to be a girl, not a boy who wore dresses.

Why would a parent encourage a more extreme change in their child than necessary? If it happened to me, I would certainly find it easier to accept that my children were merely cross-dressers than that they wanted to actually change gender.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Puja wrote:
Or alternatively, "He said he was a girl and wanted to be a girl, but we have to call him a boy because I'm set in my ways and know everything."

God forbid that we can accept people for who they are.

Puja

No you're right of course, we have to shoe horn him into a box labelled girl because we're so desperate to be wokebros that we can't simply let him be a boy who wears dresses and plays with dolls, no lets ignore reality and encourage him down a lifelong path of painful and intrusive medication rather than simply acknowledge he is what he is.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

It looks perfectly reasonable to me. According to the article the child wanted to be a girl, not a boy who wore dresses.

Why would a parent encourage a more extreme change in their child than necessary? If it happened to me, I would certainly find it easier to accept that my children were merely cross-dressers than that they wanted to actually change gender.

I spend too much of my working life seeing the horrific things that parents do to their children to still ask the question why. Sometimes they don't even mean to. Sometimes they just involve children in their adult conversations. Enough saying "men are terrible" and strangely junior doesn't want to be a man.

What's the worst that can happen? Well in this particular case a child can feel pressured into continue the path that their parent has taken them; will feel like the pride and positive reinforcement that their parent has given them will dissappear; will see that the by has made sure that there's a permanent record of a "decision" made when they were 3 by going to the papers.

Anyway if someone can tell me what the difference between a 4 year old boy and girl is, let alone explain how a 4 year old could hope to understand then articulate it, then my concern might be gone. In the meantime, have a read:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1175 ... 96672.html

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
No you're right of course, we have to shoe horn him into a box labelled girl because we're so desperate to be wokebros that we can't simply let him be a boy who wears dresses and plays with dolls, no lets ignore reality and encourage him down a lifelong path of painful and intrusive medication rather than simply acknowledge he is what he is.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

It looks perfectly reasonable to me. According to the article the child wanted to be a girl, not a boy who wore dresses.

Why would a parent encourage a more extreme change in their child than necessary? If it happened to me, I would certainly find it easier to accept that my children were merely cross-dressers than that they wanted to actually change gender.

I spend too much of my working life seeing the horrific things that parents do to their children to still ask the question why. Sometimes they don't even mean to. Sometimes they just involve children in their adult conversations. Enough saying "men are terrible" and strangely junior doesn't want to be a man.

What's the worst that can happen? Well in this particular case a child can feel pressured into continue the path that their parent has taken them; will feel like the pride and positive reinforcement that their parent has given them will dissappear; will see that the by has made sure that there's a permanent record of a "decision" made when they were 3 by going to the papers.

Anyway if someone can tell me what the difference between a 4 year old boy and girl is, let alone explain how a 4 year old could hope to understand then articulate it, then my concern might be gone. In the meantime, have a read:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1175 ... 96672.html

Of course, the parents must give the child the options (they must clearly understand that being a boy/girl, having a boyfriend/girlfriend and dressing like a boy/girl are all different things) and try not to push them one way. And a provisional "path" taken by a child must not be taken to be the definite direction taken when entering puberty. But ultimately, if a child entering puberty is adamant that they want to be the opposite gender (and not merely that they like the clothes etc), then taking puberty delaying drugs for a few years while their ideas possibly become more clear seems reasonable.

I have a son and a daughter. Let alone 4, at 2 years old they were radically different (their interests are much as you'd expect for boys and girls) without any encouragement (in fact my daughter grew up surrounded by boys' toys - it did not affect her!).