Terf me out...

[Stom]

Treat trans women as women, because they fucking want to be.

That's the whole debate, ffs! Treat me with respect and respect my right to make the life choices I make.

If trans people are free to claim their identify/gender/sex why are others not free to make their own judgement on that? I doubt most people are going to care, or at least they're rarely if ever going to actually think about it, but it seems hard to argue for the right for people to choose for themselves whilst simultaneously telling people they're not free to choose for themselves

As with a lot you write, I'm not sure I follow?

Why are people not free to choose for themselves? If I thought I was a woman in a man's body, I could go and get realigned starting today. I don't, but just because I'm in the 95%+ who are like that doesn't mean I should dictate to the tiny minority who do feel like that.

Debates that focus on "But what about the passport" "But what about the toilets" "But what about professional sport" are focusing on what are tiny details in the grand scheme of things to distract from the point:

This person wants to be treated in this way.

Of course you don't need to respect it, per se. That was Jordan Peterson's argument about the pronouns - he didn't want to be dictated to, even if he would naturally act in the prescribed way, the prescription was the problem.

But it's kind of human decency to do so.

Will people exploit it?

Yes!

But will people exploit tax systems? Yes! Do we scrap them and just have libertarians in charge? No.

Will people exploit crypto currency? Yes! Do we ban them outright? No.

Will people exploit rules on foreign players in rugby? Yes! Do we get ban them? No.

You can't hurt the lives of thousands of minorities just because a minuscule minority of that minority MAY exploit the system.

And you can't base your discussion on technicalities. You can sort them out after you start treating a human being as a fucking human being.

[Digby]

Who the bleep is Jordan Peterson and why is his (her?) opinion suddenly being dragged into this?

I'm only saying if people are free to choose then others are free to reject their choices, it just seems inconsistent to say the freedom only works one way. Which isn't pleasant, but is what it is

[Stom]

Who the bleep is Jordan Peterson and why is his (her?) opinion suddenly being dragged into this?

I'm only saying if people are free to choose then others are free to reject their choices, it just seems inconsistent to say the freedom only works one way. Which isn't pleasant, but is what it is

Why can you reject someone's choices? You can't reject them. They made them. It's their right and responsibility to make them.

They're not politicians running the country, they're a private person making a decision that impacts their life, not yours.

This isn't freedom works one way. You have complete freedom over your own self. Just like they have freedom over their own self. It is not your responsibility nor right to "reject" their choices. Their choices are their own choices.

Is that really difficult to understand?

[Digby]

Who the bleep is Jordan Peterson and why is his (her?) opinion suddenly being dragged into this?

I'm only saying if people are free to choose then others are free to reject their choices, it just seems inconsistent to say the freedom only works one way. Which isn't pleasant, but is what it is

Why can you reject someone's choices? You can't reject them. They made them. It's their right and responsibility to make them.

They're not politicians running the country, they're a private person making a decision that impacts their life, not yours.

This isn't freedom works one way. You have complete freedom over your own self. Just like they have freedom over their own self. It is not your responsibility nor right to "reject" their choices. Their choices are their own choices.

Is that really difficult to understand?

No, I get you're arguing for freedom to choose only on one side.

It would be better if people were willing to accept the choices others made in this instance, but if you're handing one group the right to define what it means to be a man or woman then it does seem inconsistent to say others can't have their own take on what defines being a man or woman. I don't for one moment suggest that makes it any easier for a trans person to make and act on any decisions around their gender, but luckily most people aren't going to think about this issue most of the time so quite a lot of changes are likely to happen in the background and ideally in a few years time this will be less of an issue.

I'm not sure how it's ever not an issue as I know I wouldn't want to go on a date with someone who had transitioned or was thinking about doing so, and it's going to take quite some shift before the majority don't think in similar fashion, or such is my assumption. Essentially just because someone says they'e a woman doesn't mean I'd accept their statement

[Eugene Wrayburn]

No one is arguing about whether or not people should have the right to choose which gender they live by. The argument is the degree to which society should recognise it. This is not mere technicality, neither to trans people nor to society.

I find an attitude which says "fuck women's sport. What does it matter" breathtakingly misogynist, particularly on here where support clearly matters.

[Donny osmond]

Sorry Stom but I find your entire argument to be misogynistic. You really should read that link as it addresses the points you've raised. If trans women are women, that raises the question what is a woman... is it someone who fits a certain societal pigeon hole? Does is mean there is really no difference between men and women... given the issues of equality that women have been arguing and fighting for for years that would be a difficult argument to make. Does it mean it is impossible to tell if someone is a woman or not?

If you take biology out of the picture, what does the word woman mean? A response to this that isnt wrapped up in misogyny would be very welcome but I've yet to see one.

And that question goes to the heart of everything that's on this thread, these three separate issues you talk about are so clearly related at their base.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Stom]

If you can explain to me how the fuck I'm being mysogynistic then we can talk further.

You cannot conflate acceptance for people who are different from me to mysogyny.

We're not talking about 50% of the population, we're talking about 0.03% or something.

And who am I to deny them their right to be comfortable both in themselves and in society.

[Donny osmond]

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

[Mikey Brown]

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

[Mikey Brown]

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.

[Puja]

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

[cashead]

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

It is absolutely colonialism. Samoan society does have an ongoing tradition of fa'afafine, which now apparently is a third, non-binary gender, but historically was seen as basically women born biologically male.

[Coco]

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

EClb_QIWsAEgBs3.jpeg.jpg

[Eugene Wrayburn]

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.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

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.

[Stom]

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.

[Mellsblue]

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.

[Puja]

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

[Son of Mathonwy]

Thank you all.

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

[Eugene Wrayburn]

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.

[Puja]

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

[morepork]

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.

[Donny osmond]

"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

[Puja]

"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