Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

LLMMLL

Tired Gardener wrote: »

I may have read what you said to be wrong, when you said...



It read that you were implying that race exists, which as you seem to agree is not founded in Science, so doesn't exist.

https://unherd.com/thepost/in-the-keira-bell-case-the-nhs-trust-had-no-answers/

This was an interesting read, how long were people called bigots and such for rasing concerns, and told that there is evidence to support the Tavistock, so their bigotry is unfounded.

Well, it would seem that when asked to present the evidence, there was none.

Not existing as a sound well defined scientific concept doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist.

We can call it perceived-race for the purposes of this debate.

Much modern political controversy is centred around the notion of perceived-race. The fact that “black” as a race can’t be defined scientifically makes no difference to the fact that people may be treated differently due to their perceived-race.

LLMMLL

Dante7 wrote: »

"Twitter's UK govt head of Public Policy @KatyMinshall agreed at Human Rights Committee that ‘terf’, like "bitch and ****" is a gendered term, and that tweets using the term, like those cited below, violate Twitter’s policies and should be removed."

Completely twisting what was actually said. The tweets violated twitters policies for other reasons. One depicted a woman being flayed alive for example. Twitter does not have a policy against the use of the word TERF. that is a lie.

"UK COURT JUDGE:
District Judge John Woollard acknowledged 'Terf' as a derogatory word aimed at, primarily, gender critical women. (Basildon Magistrate's Court on 01/03/2019 REGINA vs YARDLEY)."

No evidence this actually happened.

"All Party Parliamentary Group Report on Hate Crime:
On threats & encouragement of violence towards 'terfs' -
"It can easily be argued that this constitutes hate speech under Criminal Justice Act, which people have been successfully prosecuted for.""

They said it can be argued. The report itself draws no conclusions on the argument. The quote is a misinterpretation if the report.

Gruffalux

Dante7 wrote: »

"Twitter's UK govt head of Public Policy @KatyMinshall agreed at Human Rights Committee that ‘terf’, like "bitch and ****" is a gendered term, and that tweets using the term, like those cited below, violate Twitter’s policies and should be removed."

"STANDARDS COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND:
Dundee Councillor Gregor Murray was suspended after the Commission found Murray "abused the complainer by referring to her as a TERF (a pejorative term which stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’)."

"UK COURT JUDGE:
District Judge John Woollard acknowledged 'Terf' as a derogatory word aimed at, primarily, gender critical women. (Basildon Magistrate's Court on 01/03/2019 REGINA vs YARDLEY)."

"All Party Parliamentary Group Report on Hate Crime:
On threats & encouragement of violence towards 'terfs' -
"It can easily be argued that this constitutes hate speech under Criminal Justice Act, which people have been successfully prosecuted for.""

The Medical Journal of Australia
"The MJA apologises unreservedly for the derogatory term used in a recent post, which does not reflect the views of the MJA. A review of all our social media protocols is underway to ensure similar incidents are not a part of the MJA's social media activity - MJA Editor-in-Chief"

Boards: "Shut up TERFs."

https://twitter.com/hogotheforsaken/status/1158355043667664896?s=20

Thanks.

Gatling

Gruffalux wrote: »

Thanks.

Funny how the first post was not true , didn't happen .


It's a funny day today

Baggly

Gatling wrote: »

"Twackos"

A number of individuals who base everything they say based off what they read on twitter ,words pronouns and so on Sjw's types
Can be used to describe one or many .

Dante7 wrote: »

"Twitter's UK govt head of Public Policy @KatyMinshall agreed at Human Rights Committee that ‘terf’, like "bitch and ****" is a gendered term, and that tweets using the term, like those cited below, violate Twitter’s policies and should be removed."

"STANDARDS COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND:
Dundee Councillor Gregor Murray was suspended after the Commission found Murray "abused the complainer by referring to her as a TERF (a pejorative term which stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’)."

"UK COURT JUDGE:
District Judge John Woollard acknowledged 'Terf' as a derogatory word aimed at, primarily, gender critical women. (Basildon Magistrate's Court on 01/03/2019 REGINA vs YARDLEY)."

"All Party Parliamentary Group Report on Hate Crime:
On threats & encouragement of violence towards 'terfs' -
"It can easily be argued that this constitutes hate speech under Criminal Justice Act, which people have been successfully prosecuted for.""

The Medical Journal of Australia
"The MJA apologises unreservedly for the derogatory term used in a recent post, which does not reflect the views of the MJA. A review of all our social media protocols is underway to ensure similar incidents are not a part of the MJA's social media activity - MJA Editor-in-Chief"

Boards: "Shut up TERFs."

https://twitter.com/hogotheforsaken/status/1158355043667664896?s=20

LLMMLL wrote: »

Completely twisting what was actually said. The tweets violated twitters policies for other reasons. One depicted a woman being flayed alive for example. Twitter does not have a policy against the use of the word TERF. that is a lie.



No evidence this actually happened.



They said it can be argued. The report itself draws no conclusions on the argument. The quote is a misinterpretation if the report.

Gruffalux wrote: »

Thanks.

Gatling wrote: »

Funny how the first post was not true , didn't happen .


It's a funny day today

Mod

Week off from the thread the lot of you.

political analyst

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ok, the research on this is what could only be described as controversial. Her last point about everybody suffering when politics gets mixed up with science is just silly, because politics has always been an inherent component of science and yes, people have suffered, but there is also no denying the fact that people have also benefited from politics being mixed with science.

So, the current position, and I’ve seen this figure go from anywhere between 65 and 90% of adults who have “grown out of” gender dysphoria (and the numbers of patients involved in these studies btw are tiny, which is one of the major issues with any of these studies regarding gender dysphoria), as though they were incorrectly diagnosed and therefore the whole idea should be scrapped. But in reality, it’s the criteria for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria have changed in the last 30 years, so Stella saying that 30 years ago she could have convinced people she was transgender - she obviously didn’t convince anyone. It wasn’t a new thing even 30 years ago. The idea has been around in Western medicine and science for at least the last century in various different forms.

Much like scaremongering about autism, the idea of it’s over diagnosis has some validity, a grain of truth. However that’s literally all it is, in comparison to the mountains of scientific evidence which suggests otherwise. Same thing with gender dysphoria and that statistic - a grain of truth in the statistic, but a mountain of scientific evidence which suggests otherwise -

The Controversial Research on 'Desistance' in Transgender Youth


Stella then was not diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and even today as an adult it’s unlikely that she would be, but we know that there are adults who “come out” as transgender and it’s pretty sudden for anyone who wasn’t aware that the person is transgender, because the person kept it to themselves! So that indicates that we may well be underestimating the numbers of adults who are transgender within the population, because they’re impossible to identify without any physical characteristics we can point to and say “yep, they’re transgender alright”.

Stella saying she would have convinced anyone she was transgender is something she needs to convince herself of, in order to support her argument that gender dysphoria is being incorrectly diagnosed in children. Now Stella is a journalist of no particular note giving her opinion in a mainstream rag and being celebrated by those who agree with her for being brave in speaking out and all the rest of it. No such accolades have been bestowed upon the thousands and thousands of scientists and clinicians and physicians who are at the coal face so to speak of this issue every day, and are trying to discover its origins in order to develop better treatments which they hope will lead to better health outcomes.

So Stella who is a journalist, and not a scientist, crowing about the dangers of doing the very thing she is guilty of, is hardly the canary in the fcuking coal mine she and those who already agreed with her opinions, think she is. There’s nothing brave about parroting an opinion she’s already fairly sure is held by the majority of people in society, but there’s a few quid in it all the same, so no harm done at least, to Stella anyway.

Is that reference to scaremongering about autism to do with the MMR vaccine scare? Most people had already heard of autism long before Andrew Wakefield started causing trouble. Autism is still much less debilitating than many other disabilities.

Stella isn't just a journalist - she's a psychotherapist and so she knows more than a little about gender dysphoria.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ah let them have their Terf word, they certainly have no coherent arguments or logical consistency to fall back on so i'd allow them this security blanket. Plus, it's a good way to know who the Flat Eathers are when you spot Terf in their posts.

A good point, really.

mr_fegelien

Does anyone else think that gender politics are something that is overrepresented on the internet and TV but in reality, the average Irish person (or average person in any country) hasn't a clue about it?

My dad is pretty smart and an accoutnant, he only has heard about gender politics to the extend of transgender people. That's it.

Why are people busy talking about 0.1% of the population? Seems like conspiracy propaganda to me

Smacruairi

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Why are people busy talking about 0.1% of the population? Seems like conspiracy propaganda to me

Agreed, but then why are the fundamental laws of sports, public areas, the terminology used in medicine also changing to accommodate the .01%.

RWCNT

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Does anyone else think that gender politics are something that is overrepresented on the internet and TV but in reality, the average Irish person (or average person in any country) hasn't a clue about it?

My dad is pretty smart and an accoutnant, he only has heard about gender politics to the extend of transgender people. That's it.

Why are people busy talking about 0.1% of the population? Seems like conspiracy propaganda to me

Your dad's profession and the supposed intelligence that comes with it don't really have any relevance. Everyone has topics that for whatever reason don't come up on their radar or don't interest them enough to look into.

However, I do actually agree with you to some extent. It's a niche issue that receives a lot of media coverage considering the overall % that transgender people make up of the population. Like a lot of issues, I feel it's reported on in such a way as to confuse and aggravate people to drive clicks, generate outrage and spark incendiary debates, which means newspapers can print more opinion pieces and articles on it to keep the cycle going. I really don't think it does transgender individuals much good at all.

TomTomTim

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Does anyone else think that gender politics are something that is overrepresented on the internet and TV but in reality, the average Irish person (or average person in any country) hasn't a clue about it?

My dad is pretty smart and an accoutnant, he only has heard about gender politics to the extend of transgender people. That's it.

Why are people busy talking about 0.1% of the population? Seems like conspiracy propaganda to me

You can blame the media class and trans activists for all of the above. Most people here are simply responding to it, as it's widespread online. It's not just confined to the internet and media though, it's resulting in legislation all throughout the west, so it should not be ignored.

jmayo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You mean like the way John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova are trying to erase Margaret Court from the history books because they don’t like her opinions?

Like anyone else, the little bit of power they have can go to some people’s heads.

The thing is though that nobody is being denied access to any sport or being discriminated against. That they don’t want to compete in the sport because other competitors might beat them is their own personal choice. It’s not sufficient reason to ban anyone from the competition who might beat them. About the best they can do is what they’ve always done and accuse their competition of doping or cheating in order to smear their reputation.

Didn't know about the Margaret Court crusade she is on.
Like a lot of people Court is probably a combination of her times and the fact she found a certain flavour of religion can mean she has some very unpopular opinions.
Likewise with that other Australian Israel Folau she has opinions that can be quite toxic.

Now as Navratilova states it doesn't mean she was not a fantastic tennis player.

BTW I think Navratilova maybe trying to restore her position within the liberal elite by championing this cause.
She got turfed out for what I believe was rightly calling out the shyte about adult males, who now describe themselves as females playing in womens sport.


Oh and yes I do think women that were born female are indeed been discriminated against when they have to compete in physical sports against women who were born male.

Only an eejit who completely disregards biology and science would argue otherwise, as a male develops differently through puberty which results in greater strengths in comparison to a females puberty.

And ultimately the result is competition skewed in the favour of the male born women.
To me that is discrimination.

Girly Gal wrote: »

Elliot page is entitled to do what they want and I wish them well in the future and hope everything works out for them, however, I do find the idea of changing all their previous film credits from Ellen to Elliot strange, as at the time they were filmed and released Ellen was their name.
Don't know what they expect to achieve by changing the credits.
It's the same with Caitlyn Jenner, at the time she won the Olympic gold medal she was still Bruce, so the medal should still be credited to Bruce and not retrospectively credited to Caitlyn (there could be a note stating now Caitlyn), it's like a form of erasing history. Like it or not Bruce Jenner and Ellen Page did exist, they both may have changed their names and changed or in the process of changing gender, but, history shouldn't be retrospectively changed to suit them.

That is bullcr**.
Bruce Jenner won the decathlon gold, not someone named Caitlyn Jenner.
Just like Bruce Jenner was born in Oct 1949.

Likewise Elliott Page can change their name, their physical appearance, but they can't change the fact that it was Ellen Page that was in previous productions.

They can change their name, they can change their outward physical appearance, but they can't change historical facts.
BTW reviewing history doesn't change the facts, it can change the opinions on it, it can change how they are viewed or perceived, but a fact is a fact.

BTW haven't the foggiest clue as to who the fook they are?
Just seen they were in Trailer Park Boys, but can't remember them.


Lets hope this isn't the new "go to" to get one noticed in media circles.

Maybe the complains of childhood abuse, sexual harrassement, mental illness just don't get the media inches these days.

And yes I am cynical of ones courting media attention to further their profiles and careers.

CtevenSrowder

jmayo wrote: »

Didn't know about the Margaret Court crusade she is on.
Like a lot of people Court is probably a combination of her times and the fact she found a certain flavour of religion can mean she has some very unpopular opinions...
.

He was in Juno. A good film you should watch it.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

She was in Juno. A very good film you should watch it.

The one where HE plays a pregnant teenage girl?

haha. this is madness.

jmayo

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

She was in Juno. A good film you should watch it.

Were there any peacocks in it ?

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

The one where HE plays a pregnant teenage girl?

haha. this is madness.

Correct. I've edited my post.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Correct. I've edited my post.

Didn't want you to get a warning!

One eyed Jack

political analyst wrote: »

Is that reference to scaremongering about autism to do with the MMR vaccine scare? Most people had already heard of autism long before Andrew Wakefield started causing trouble. Autism is still much less debilitating than many other disabilities.

No, it’s scaremongering to do with the idea that autism is being over-diagnosed, when in reality what’s changed are the diagnostic criteria. It’s interesting though that you make the point that autism is still much less debilitating than many other disabilities, because it overlaps somewhat with arguments raised by people who want to scaremonger in the discussion of children being diagnosed with gender dysphoria - there are people who claim that many of these children are also diagnosed as autistic or diagnosed with autism, or are on the “ASD spectrum” or have Aspergers (they rarely mention the “Syndrome” part of that, nor the fact that it’s been declassified as a diagnosis in the DSM5 in favour of being diagnosed as being somewhere on the ASD spectrum). Basically the “argument” is that clinicians aren’t taking the idea that the patient is autistic into account which would “explain” their fixation with gender, or that the patient being fixated with gender is an indication that they may be autistic.

You can see how that circular argument works, but basically it’s proponents are throwing shìte as though they want to have people decide between autism and gender dysphoria. As you suggested (perhaps without realising), there are far more socially unacceptable disorders than autism - gender dysphoria is one of ‘em.

political analyst wrote: »

Stella isn't just a journalist - she's a psychotherapist and so she knows more than a little about gender dysphoria.

That makes her “when politics get mixed up in science” baloney even worse! Genuinely, I was making allowances for the fact that as a journalist I could forgive her feigned ignorance, but as a qualified psychotherapist, she has no excuse other than her politics for pretending she doesn’t know better and writing that crap. She absolutely would know better as a psychotherapist! (though that does explain why I’ve never heard of her as a journalist :pac:)

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The one where HE plays a pregnant teenage girl?

haha. this is madness.

Maybe they should change the name to Jupiter.

One eyed Jack

jmayo wrote: »

BTW I think Navratilova maybe trying to restore her position within the liberal elite by championing this cause.

She got turfed out for what I believe was rightly calling out the shyte about adult males, who now describe themselves as females playing in womens sport.

Oh and yes I do think women that were born female are indeed been discriminated against when they have to compete in physical sports against women who were born male.

Only an eejit who completely disregards biology and science would argue otherwise, as a male develops differently through puberty which results in greater strengths in comparison to a females puberty.

And ultimately the result is competition skewed in the favour of the male born women.

To me that is discrimination.

I dunno what you’re going to make of this then, but basically when when a small number of men decided they wanted a safe space for men only, they were vilified for excluding women -

’Tone deaf’: Novak Djokovic creates new players association for men only

(I’m sorry the handiest link on google for that story is a site called “Women’s Agenda” )

Anyway, women argue that they are being discriminated against because of traditional stereotypes, which, really they have a fairly compelling argument IMO, far more compelling to argue their inclusion in the men’s class than the argument against including people who are transgender in the women’s class -

Both men and women are disadvantaged by the sexist rules at Wimbledon – so why do they endure?


And the wheelchair tennis players were none too happy about their tournament being cancelled this year either -

‘Disgusting discrimination’: Dylan Alcott blasts US Open over omission


That’s basically what is meant by discrimination - exclusion. People deciding that they don’t want to play any more if so and so are included in the sport, can at least claim to be the victims of discrimination. But that’s not what discrimination means, and they are not being discriminated against.

The argument against mixing classes of males and females in sports has fcukall to do with biology or any unfounded fears that women will lose out (when they’re treated far worse than the men in the first place), and everything to do with money and politics.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The argument against mixing classes of males and females in sports has fcukall to do with biology or any unfounded fears that women will lose out (when they’re treated far worse than the men in the first place), and everything to do with money and politics.

Jack have you ever played any sport? It has everything to do with women losing out! Mixed sports that are Physical contact sports will put women at a far higher risk of injury then if if they were solely playing against other women. Secondly (unless quotas were brought in), men would solely be picked due to inherent physical advantages they have on average over women.

Thirdly, in individual sports, with very few exceptions (I'm thinking certain gymnastics events, bowling, bowls) men will dominate again due to inherent physical advantages. Mixing sports will effectively end female participation.

This is something I believe that only those who have never played any sport in a serious manner could believe is a good idea. It isn't. It's a terrible idea.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Jack have you ever played any sport?

I have Cteven, played plenty of sports, all different types of sports, including combat sports and individual sports, and apart from taking a rugby ball to the hip which missed the family jewels by inches when I went to test out the new hip replacement and a girl miskicked a conversion during a game of rugby, I have never suffered any injury (I wouldn’t even class it as an injury as I was still standing!). I’m well aware of the types of injuries in sports that can be suffered by both males and females of all ages, physiques and fitness levels.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It has everything to do with women losing out! Mixed sports that are Physical contact sports will put women at a far higher risk of injury then if if they were solely playing against other women. Secondly (unless quotas were brought in), men would solely be picked due to inherent physical advantages they have on average over women.

Quotas already exist in sports? And the idea of women “losing out” is completely unfounded. They lose out already by virtue of the fact that they are paid less, their sports are generally relegated rather than promoted to the same degree as the men’s sports, and you still missed the part where I said that participants should be classed on their ability, that means their skill level, their technique and mental and physical fitness. There will still be participants who have advantages over others in the same way as there are participants now who have advantages over their competitors. It won’t stop people who want to participate in the sport, whether they are girls, boys, women or men. Chances are there will be just as many boys and men who don’t want to compete against girls and women as there are girls and women who don’t want to compete because they don’t want to have to compete against the competition. Sports are more than just what happens on the field or the track or wherever else. Sports have a social aspect to them. Your argument against mixed participation is the same arguments that were used against women in the labour market years ago - too delicate, won’t be able for physical labour, will want to have a family, etc (not saying those are exactly your arguments, I’m saying the argument against women’s participation in the labour market were similar), and it’s similar arguments were used to justify exclusion of other groups from sports and social institutions. Yet somehow, society managed it, somewhat at least. Is it perfect? No, and there’s always room for improvement.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Thirdly, in individual sports, with very few exceptions (I'm thinking certain gymnastics events, bowling, bowls) men will dominate again due to inherent physical advantages. Mixing sports will effectively end female participation.

This is something I believe that only those who have never played any sport in a serious manner could believe is a good idea. It isn't. It's a terrible idea.

There are plenty of elite sports players are calling for inclusion of as many social groups as possible in sports, plenty of organisations and governing bodies are perfectly willing to accommodate all people in sports, they have qualifying conditions and criteria and that is their prerogative, I don’t have any issue with that whatsoever, I actually prefer if the few people who want to exclude people from playing sports voluntarily exclude themselves and let anyone who wants to participate in the sport get on with it while those who don’t want to participate in the sport can always go to their safe space. Your belief is simply unfounded, and has been proven to be unfounded for decades now as women’s participation in sports has increased, and the only thing holding it back are the fact that they’re not given as much media exposure as the men’s sports (apart from beach volleyball during the Olympics ).

political analyst

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it’s scaremongering to do with the idea that autism is being over-diagnosed, when in reality what’s changed are the diagnostic criteria. It’s interesting though that you make the point that autism is still much less debilitating than many other disabilities, because it overlaps somewhat with arguments raised by people who want to scaremonger in the discussion of children being diagnosed with gender dysphoria - there are people who claim that many of these children are also diagnosed as autistic or diagnosed with autism, or are on the “ASD spectrum” or have Aspergers (they rarely mention the “Syndrome” part of that, nor the fact that it’s been declassified as a diagnosis in the DSM5 in favour of being diagnosed as being somewhere on the ASD spectrum). Basically the “argument” is that clinicians aren’t taking the idea that the patient is autistic into account which would “explain” their fixation with gender, or that the patient being fixated with gender is an indication that they may be autistic.

You can see how that circular argument works, but basically it’s proponents are throwing shìte as though they want to have people decide between autism and gender dysphoria. As you suggested (perhaps without realising), there are far more socially unacceptable disorders than autism - gender dysphoria is one of ‘em.





That makes her “when politics get mixed up in science” baloney even worse! Genuinely, I was making allowances for the fact that as a journalist I could forgive her feigned ignorance, but as a qualified psychotherapist, she has no excuse other than her politics for pretending she doesn’t know better and writing that crap. She absolutely would know better as a psychotherapist! (though that does explain why I’ve never heard of her as a journalist :pac:)

That, along with her memory of her childhood, means that she knows a substantial amount about gender dysphoria.

If you don't take Stella seriously then, surely, you can take Keira Bell seriously.

As for Asperger syndrome, the name 'Asperger' is shorthand for it.

Tired Gardener

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52355891-brenda-is-a-sheep

Oh dear...

Essentially telling kids that if a predator (a wolf, which is used in a lot of folk tales and lore to teach kids about predators) says that they are not a predator that you should believe them.

So a book telling kids to ignore what they see and instead go with what they are being told. Isn't that gaslighting?

How the hell did this book not raise a while load of red flags is astounding.

suicide_circus

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52355891-brenda-is-a-sheep

Oh dear...

Essentially telling kids that if a predator (a wolf, which is used in a lot of folk tales and lore to teach kids about predators) says that they are not a predator that you should believe them.

So a book telling kids to ignore what they see and instead go with what they are being told. Isn't that gaslighting?

How the hell did this book not raise a while load of red flags is astounding.

Jayzus, pick literally any other animals

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have Cteven, played plenty of sports, all different types of sports, including combat sports and individual sports, and apart from taking a rugby ball to the hip which missed the family jewels by inches when I went to test out the new hip replacement and a girl miskicked a conversion during a game of rugby, I have never suffered any injury (I wouldn’t even class it as an injury as I was still standing!). I’m well aware of the types of injuries in sports that can be suffered by both males and females of all ages, physiques and fitness levels.





Quotas already exist in sports? And the idea of women “losing out” is completely unfounded. They lose out already by virtue of the fact that they are paid less, their sports are generally relegated rather than promoted to the same degree as the men’s sports, and you still missed the part where I said that participants should be classed on their ability, that means their skill level, their technique and mental and physical fitness. There will still be participants who have advantages over others in the same way as there are participants now who have advantages over their competitors. It won’t stop people who want to participate in the sport, whether they are girls, boys, women or men. Chances are there will be just as many boys and men who don’t want to compete against girls and women as there are girls and women who don’t want to compete because they don’t want to have to compete against the competition. Sports are more than just what happens on the field or the track or wherever else. Sports have a social aspect to them. Your argument against mixed participation is the same arguments that were used against women in the labour market years ago - too delicate, won’t be able for physical labour, will want to have a family, etc (not saying those are exactly your arguments, I’m saying the argument against women’s participation in the labour market were similar), and it’s similar arguments were used to justify exclusion of other groups from sports and social institutions. Yet somehow, society managed it, somewhat at least. Is it perfect? No, and there’s always room for improvement.





There are plenty of elite sports players are calling for inclusion of as many social groups as possible in sports, plenty of organisations and governing bodies are perfectly willing to accommodate all people in sports, they have qualifying conditions and criteria and that is their prerogative, I don’t have any issue with that whatsoever, I actually prefer if the few people who want to exclude people from playing sports voluntarily exclude themselves and let anyone who wants to participate in the sport get on with it while those who don’t want to participate in the sport can always go to their safe space. Your belief is simply unfounded, and has been proven to be unfounded for decades now as women’s participation in sports has increased, and the only thing holding it back are the fact that they’re not given as much media exposure as the men’s sports (apart from beach volleyball during the Olympics ).

So....

Simply put,

without a wall of text,

should men and women compete against each other in sports and only the best of the best be able to compete at an elite level?

Quantum Erasure

suicide_circus wrote: »

Jayzus, pick literally any other animals

Well, we've already had Babe, the sheepdog pig

Tired Gardener

suicide_circus wrote: »

Jayzus, pick literally any other animals

Exactly, if it were say a pig or a cow that thought it was a sheep it would be funny, and not sending a dangerous message.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have Cteven, played plenty of sports, all different types of sports, including combat sports and individual sports, and apart from taking a rugby ball to the hip which missed the family jewels by inches when I went to test out the new hip replacement and a girl miskicked a conversion during a game of rugby, I have never suffered any injury. I’m well aware of the types of injuries in sports that can be suffered by both males and females of all ages, physiques and fitness levels.

Are you aware that women will be more at risk of injury if they are to play with men in a competitive environment?

Do you think having a male boxing a female is a good idea?

Thirdly, I find it very hard to believe that you have played 'all manner of sports' and yet never suffered any injuries. That is incredibly rare. Did you play any of these sports to a reasonably high standard? I'm talking the higher divisions of LSL, AIB in rugby or a step or 2 below?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Quotas already exist in sports? And the idea of women “losing out” is completely unfounded. They lose out already by virtue of the fact that they are paid less, their sports are generally relegated rather than promoted to the same degree as the men’s sports,

They will lose out even more if there is no sole female categories. If sport becomes mixed they will 'lose out' even more. It is better to play in front of 2,000 people representing your country then it is to sit in the stands with 20,000 people watching a bunch of men representing their country, knowing full well you'll never have the opportunity to do likewise as you are inherently weaker and slower.

Just because women's sports is potentially underfunded and not very popular is not reason to eradicate it completely.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and you still missed the part where I said that participants should be classed on their ability, that means their skill level, their technique and mental and physical fitness. There will still be participants who have advantages over others in the same way as there are participants now who have advantages over their competitors.

No quotas and men dominate, have quotas and the standard drops across the board. A lot (and in my opinion the majority) will not want to be tackling women on the sports field, and won't do so with the force and intensity they would against another man. Thus, everyone loses out.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It won’t stop people who want to participate in the sport, whether they are girls, boys, women or men. Chances are there will be just as many boys and men who don’t want to compete against girls and women as there are girls and women who don’t want to compete because they don’t want to have to compete against the competition.

Ofcourse they won't want to compete against the competition. The competition has a natural inherited advantage by the fact that the competition is male.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sports are more than just what happens on the field or the track or wherever else. Sports have a social aspect to them.

I'm talking about sport primarily at a competitive level.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your argument against mixed participation is the same arguments that were used against women in the labour market years ago - too delicate, won’t be able for physical labour, will want to have a family, etc (not saying those are exactly your arguments, I’m saying the argument against women’s participation in the labour market were similar), and it’s similar arguments were used to justify exclusion of other groups from sports and social institutions. Yet somehow, society managed it, somewhat at least.

This is such a dumb analogy. Firstly, they aren't being excluded from partaking in sports, so it's not even an apt comparison. Secondly, it isn't that the women are too soft and delicate, it's that the man are too fast and powerful.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it perfect? No, and there’s always room for improvement.

I fail to see how the eradication of women's sports is an improvement. It would be a massive step backwards.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are plenty of elite sports players are calling for inclusion of as many social groups as possible in sports, plenty of organisations and governing bodies are perfectly willing to accommodate all people in sports, they have qualifying conditions and criteria and that is their prerogative, I don’t have any issue with that whatsoever, I actually prefer if the few people who want to exclude people from playing sports voluntarily exclude themselves and let anyone who wants to participate in the sport get on with it while those who don’t want to participate in the sport can always go to their safe space. Your belief is simply unfounded, and has been proven to be unfounded for decades now as women’s participation in sports has increased, and the only thing holding it back are the fact that they’re not given as much media exposure as the men’s sports (apart from beach volleyball during the Olympics ).

Yes, increased participation, were the women primarily compete against other women and vice versa. You want to undo that, and have a situation were males compete against females which is a totally unbalanced playing field due to the inherent natural advantages that men have on average over women. These advantages only become amplified the more elite the level.

Even people want to play mixed social football, or mixed tag rugby then good luck to them. I'm talking about proper, organised competitive sport were people are playing to win.

Katie Taylor would be battered by most decent amateur "born male" boxers. She is the pinnacle of her division.