Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

15 minutes ago, SasaS said:

But wouldn't higher rates of mental health problems and suicide be caused by the basic, underlining problem of seriously struggling with your identity, rather than not being allowed to compete in weight lifting in a category restricted to biological women?

Yes. Which is why it's wrong to try to force people into one of two discrete boxes.

 

The sport thing is a bit of a red herring.  It's only useful as an illustration of the different ways that have been tried - unsuccessfully  - to distinguish people as definitively male or definitively female.

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Here's a fun thing. The piece from Nature that I linked to isn't the sum total of the stuff I've read from various respected science publications.  

 

There's a clearly established and accepted scientific consensus that "sex is dimorphic. Large and small gametes. The end." is unscientific horseshit.  Those are the scientific facts.

 

Here's the opinion.

Basing public policies on unscientific horseshit is never a good idea. 

Show me these links.  Show me those scientists who say sex is a spectrum.  Show me the person who is enough a man and enough a woman to get themselves pregnant.  
 

Is a man with a high voice and no facial hair less of a man than someone like The Bitch?  You are talking horseshit.  
 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

This sums it up quite well

 

Same goes for discussion of single-sex spaces. If you’re proposing to radically alter the social norms around entry to spaces where women get undressed, and you don’t even think that should be critically discussed, you’re a joke and a disgrace.

Depends what you mean by "radically alter the social norms..."

 

If you mean accepting that not everyone is happy with just two options (male or female) for communal changing, so additional provisions should be made, to avoid excluding people, then , yeah, let's alter those norms.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Show me these links.  Show me those scientists who say sex is a spectrum.  Show me the person who is enough a man and enough a woman to get themselves pregnant.

No.

 

Get off the podcasts and try Google.  Prefix your search for "is sex binary" with something like "Nature" or "New Scientist" (to help filter out the shoutier nutters from either side of the debate) and you'll find something much more useful than bigots pretending to care about women's safety.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Show me the person who is enough a man and enough a woman to get themselves pregnant. 

Is a man with a high voice and no facial hair less of a man than someone like The Bitch?  

Where the fuck is this nonsense coming from?

 

You're making crocoduck arguments.

[SasaS]

6 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Yes. Which is why it's wrong to try to force people into one of two discrete boxes.

 

The sport thing is a bit of a red herring.  It's only useful as an illustration of the different ways that have been tried - unsuccessfully  - to distinguish people as definitively male or definitively female.

 

Would it then not be a good idea to have those who are not definitely this or that compete in a non-restrictive category such as men's sports, and leave women's sports to those who can be defined within that category according to already set parameters?  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

39 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

Would it then not be a good idea to have those who are not definitely this or that compete in a non-restrictive category such as men's sports, and leave women's sports to those who can be defined within that category according to already set parameters?  

The question is what the parameters are. Scientists have tried looking at internal and external sex organs, chromosomes, hormones, skeletal structure, brain structure and function and just about everything short of snakes & snails/sugar &spice. None of them can reliably say "this individual is definitively male or female".

The dilemma with sports comes with someone like Caster Semanya who is undeniably female in many respects, but presents as a bit of a grey area in respects which give her a competitive advantage. Should she be barred because she has a natural physical advantage? Are there any elite athletes who don't have some sort of natural physical advantage?

[Mook]

22 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The question is what the parameters are. Scientists have tried looking at external sex organs

I can't help thinking they should be having another look.

[SasaS]

25 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The question is what the parameters are. Scientists have tried looking at internal and external sex organs, chromosomes, hormones, skeletal structure, brain structure and function and just about everything short of snakes & snails/sugar &spice. None of them can reliably say "this individual is definitively male or female".

The dilemma with sports comes with someone like Caster Semanya who is undeniably female in many respects, but presents as a bit of a grey area in respects which give her a competitive advantage. Should she be barred because she has a natural physical advantage? Are there any elite athletes who don't have some sort of natural physical advantage?

The problem is, for me, that her natural advantage comes from the very fact that she crosses the parameters, not from some special talent or unique physical attribute, having a greater lung capacity or something. She isn't a very talented athlete who has a problem with parameters, her talent is the very fact that she has a man's physique. As a layman, I can only notice that she looks like a man, talks like a man, runs and walks like a man. If I wasn't told she was a woman, I would each and every time "misgender"  her.

Even if we accept that we are culturally conditioned to think what a woman looks like, it's a big stretch not to think "are you fucking kidding me" when you look at Semenya beating a group of other athletes. After her a couple more appeared with similar appearance, so when you look at that 800m podium from a couple of years ago you really have to try hard to accept what you are telling me instead of what is in front of our eyes.

[Rico1304]

2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

No.

 

Get off the podcasts and try Google.  Prefix your search for "is sex binary" with something like "Nature" or "New Scientist" (to help filter out the shoutier nutters from either side of the debate) and you'll find something much more useful than bigots pretending to care about women's safety.

Ask Dr Emma Hilton. She’s an expert. 

[Rico1304]

Read all about it. 
 

https://fondofbeetles.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/from-humans-to-asparagus-females-are-females/

[Tony Moanero]

8 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Read all about it. 
 

https://fondofbeetles.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/from-humans-to-asparagus-females-are-females/

Repped for posting on the GF during the match.

[VladimirIlyich]

41 minutes ago, Tony Moanero said:

Repped for posting on the GF during the match.

Repped for repping while watching flashscores.

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, Tony Moanero said:

Repped for posting on the GF during the match.

Teletext was on in the background 

[Rico1304]

Madness. 
 

 

[moof]

Cool, I get all of my science from the ultra conservative Christian lobby too

[Numero Veinticinco]

11 minutes ago, moof said:

Cool, I get all of my science from the ultra conservative Christian lobby too

I then like to present them with ‘fact’ at the end. Then, and only then, do I know I’m right.

 

Fact. 

[moof]

21 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I then like to present them with ‘fact’ at the end. Then, and only then, do I know I’m right.

 

Fact. 

Mental, consistency kids etc. Always remember folks, it’s not science until you a) hear it on a podcast; b) read it on your twitter feed; or c) watch a short clip of some religious conservative guy appealing to your preconceived notions 

 

and especially always remember, the only important thing about science is me being proved right, regardless of anything else 

[Numero Veinticinco]

21 minutes ago, moof said:

Mental, consistency kids etc. Always remember folks, it’s not science until you a) hear it on a podcast; b) read it on your twitter feed; or c) watch a short clip of some religious conservative guy appealing to your preconceived notions 

 

and especially always remember, the only important thing about science is me being proved right, regardless of anything else 

Mate, if science doesn’t prove me right, it ain’t science. 

[Rico1304]

I’m sure all that was proving Emma Hilton wrong.  Sorry, Dr Emma.  Men not believing women again. Who’d have thunk it?  Is there a word for it? 
 

Oh, and Debbie is trans. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

9 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Ask Dr Emma Hilton. She’s an expert. 

Never heard of the cunt. 

[redheart]

 

[Rico1304]

7 minutes ago, redheart said:

 

You can bet your life they won’t watch that.  
 

as I mentioned earlier she’s part of the team WRU have asked to look into women in rugby.  

[skend04]

On 06/03/2020 at 19:19, johnsusername said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/athletics/transgender-weightlifter-laurel-hubbard-continues-21600532.amp

 

Transgender weightlifter Laurel Hubbard continues 2020 Olympic bid amid 'unfair' accusations

Laurel hasn't lifted anywhere close to the world record for her category and she might not even make the Olympics. What a waste of time transitioning to try and make the Olympics and failing to do so. Can she get her penis back if this fails?

[VladimirIlyich]

1 minute ago, skend04 said:

Laurel hasn't lifted anywhere close to the world record for her category and she might not even make the Olympics. What a waste of time transitioning to try and make the Olympics and failing to do so. Can she get her penis back if this fails?

Depends who has it.