If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

When did being woke become a bad thing?



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,214 ✭✭✭✭Grayson

    There was nothing else to reply to. If you mean the testosterone testing isn't enough? I'd say it can go to far. As one of the articles shows, it doesn't have any relevance in mens sports. men who have more don't perform better.

    And I'd say it is heartless. Those three women are just regular women. An arbitrary rule was made up which excluded them. There's zero proof their testosterone levels caused them to be better. And even if it did, they they did nothing wrong. They may be genetically superior athletes but that's no reason to exclude them from competition. They physically have an edge over other atheletes but my reply to that is so-what? Every top tier athelete has a genetic advantage over the amateurs in the sport. And the person who comes first in the Olympics has an advantage over the ones who come last in the olympics. Should Usain Bolt be banned because no-one has a chance to be faster than him? We could analyse his genes and find the specific combination that helped him get that far and ban anyone with similar genes because it's not fair on the people who don't have that?

    Anyone at the top level of any sport is going to be so far outside the normal ranges of fitness that I would expect them to be different.

    Those women should not be banned. No woman should be banned from competing in any sport. And people should feel outraged that they are.

    I understand the reasons for excluding some trans people. I would not say that someone should be able to compete competitively 5 mins after legally transitioning. There should be rules. But when they use those rules to exclude three black athletes, that's wrong. And I'm pretty certain that if it was excluding a load of top athletes in the US the outrage would be greater.

  • Registered Users Posts: 668 ✭✭✭taxAHcruel

    Not wanting to reply is of course not quite the same thing as there being nothing to reply to of course. Though we seem in the specific case of the three women you mention to be agreeing with each other on almost everything.

    As I said I think testosterone testing is worse then being mere "not enough". Much of the advantages conferred by testosterone, such as going through a normal full length male puberty, stay long after any muting of testosterone is done later in life. So merely testing a 30 year old athlete to see if they have below a certain level of testosterone on the day - really is not conferring as much information or utility as many would like to pretend. Especially in sports with high level of contact or combat for example. Like you it seems patently ridiculous to me that these three women were excluded. It suggests something is very wrong with the regulations that is worth looking at!

    Calling something "heartless" does not address the core point behind it though. It is not "heartless" to prevent rationality from being overwhelmed by emotion. There is a time and a place for both and there are times and places where each is not helpful. The point again is that _no matter what rule_ you put in place to create any kind of division or separation you are likely to disenfranchise someone.

    So that means there is nothing "heartless" about it at all in that light. Because the moment you give in to your heart to change regulations to fix things for the three women who are currently pulling your heartstrings - you will disenfranchise and put out another three. Or more. So if you become a slave to your heart you will simply never win.

    So one has to be informed by but not controlled by the heart. Which is the opposite of "heartless". And to do so one must put in the best set of rules possible - that make the most amount of sense - and do one's very best to increment and evolve those rules to disenfranchise the least amount of people possible. Knowing all the while you will never get it perfect and someone is always very likely to lose out no matter how hard you work. And that is not just in sport. It is in so very many things we as a society do.

    And as I say - if you get to the point that despite the 1000s upon 1000s of people competing in sport - you find a mere 3 people who were put out - then you are probably doing a damn good job with the existing regulations as it is. Forget 3. Even 30 or 300 would still be bloody impressive. But that of course does not mean that cases like the three you highlight should not be used to test the rules and seek improvement all the same. Perfection probably will never be attained. But that does not mean one should not keeping moving towards it. And it very much should be questioned why those three women were excluded and if the rules that excluded them were fit for purpose. I - like you - suspect they were not.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition

    I'd probably be what some people would consider progressive in nearly all my views, but having biological males in women's sport just can't work. It's very unfortunate and it'd be great if it could, but unfortunately it won't.

    People born female just can't compete against those who have gone through male puberty.

    People who say there isn't a problem don't do those who are transgender any favours, there is a need for honesty and realism around the issue.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,701 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien

    Here's the latest scientific paper on it:

    Page 5 has the important bit:

    Available evidence indicates trans women who have undergone testosterone suppression have no clear biological advantages over cis women in elite sport.

    Now, I agree there is a need for honesty and realism around this issue, but there is also a need to open some closed minds as well

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,214 ✭✭✭✭Grayson

    They're testing cis women for testosterone. As I mentioned there should be rules for trans athletes but they're testing cis women and excluding them. This is as bad as when cis women are excluded from bathrooms because they're not feminine enough. they're deciding these athletes are not womanly enough to compete. They're too manly.

    I'm someone who's generally in favor of trans rights. I'm the person who would be described as "woke". We're at the point in the trans debate where I'm arguing that cis women should be allowed to participate in cis womens sports. And that when cis women are banned it's wrong. You can see why this seems bizarre. Why it's weird that the "woke" position is to let women play womens sports.

    You devoted three paragraphs to trying to explain why I'm being over emotional and should be rational. so let's put this simply.

    1) Do you believe those women should be allowed compete? A simple yes or no. Then you can elaborate on why they deserve to run or be banned.

    2) If the rule bans people who should be able to compete it's an unfair rule and should be dropped/changed.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,608 ✭✭✭Montage of Feck

    Can we just go back to people having a bit of cop on, common sense like. Obviously being an arsehole for the sake of it shouldn't be tolerated whatever side of a argument your on, stated better in the above comment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭BruteStock

    This paper was produced by Far left activism , as is most activism that strives for equity over equality. Its garbled gibberish.

    E-Alliance research is informed by its mission to improve sport participation and leadership for all genders.

    In order to improve participation and leadership, research must also address gender-based violence in sport and the role of more equitable media representation and coverage.

    Our research takes place in an oppressive context. In order to improve gender+ equity in sport, we must better understand the complex ways in which multiple markers of our identities –race, Indigeneity, disability and LGBTQ2S+– come together. We must find ways to disrupt these systems and intervene.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,701 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien

    It was commissioned by the CCES?

    "The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) commissioned this literature review with a mandate to review the scientific and grey literature regarding trans women athletes’ participation in elite or otherwise high-performance sport (herein shortened to ‘elite sport’), with a special focus on the state of scientific literature around the science of testosterone and its impact on sport performance."

    It's also a pretty dense 86 pages long, so I suspect you haven't read it to call it "Garbled Gibberish"

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,416 ✭✭✭Zico

    It's a label.

    Just be civil.

    You're not being woke by behaving yourself away from a keyboard.

  • Registered Users Posts: 668 ✭✭✭taxAHcruel

    The first thing worth pointing out here is that contrary to your claim - that is not a "scientific paper" at all let alone somehow the "latest". It's a review. Which is something entirely different. And it is a quite bad review at that which in part ignores quite a lot of things - and in part "adjusts for" other things in a way that effectively has them ignore what is inconvenient to make it go away.

    At best this link is a contrived opinion piece written to fulfill an agenda and offers nothing new or useful. What it most certainly is not however is "the latest scientific paper".

    Rather then write a long post about it however - since you indicated before you have issues following when I write them - I will reference others who have already invented that wheel for us.

    Here is a review of the review which goes into a lot of detail on the underhand and misleading tactics the writer of said opinion piece engaged in: and other academics penned an 18 page response rebuttal discussion to it also here: which a useful review of the entire discussion and publication of these papers and counter papers is here:

    So by all means open closed minds. But as the old saying goes - let us not open our minds so wide our brains fall out!

    Again we appear to be in mostly full agreement about the testing women for testosterone here. From testing actual women for testosterone to your claim about excluding actual women from actual womens bathrooms - it becomes clear that some element of moral panic is having our society act in crazy ways.

    The thread is about "When did woke become a bad thing?" and this is as useful an answer as any. It became bad when the desperation to be inclusive of a tiny minority of people started negatively impacting another tiny minority of people. When these people are so desperate to pander to their heart strings for one small group and care not a jot for the impact it has on a probably equally sized small group - they are likely to lose support.

    Which just brings me once again back to the core point I was making - which is a flag worth standing beside and repeating. I think you have taken me choosing to reply to your original post as me disagreeing with your post. While very little we are saying to each other is actually in disagreement. Rather I used your post as a spring board to make one of my own. I actually have no dogs at all in the Transgender debates to be perfectly honest on the matter. I have mostly avoided any and all threads on the subject. And have merely been "thinking out loud" on it in this particular thread after a couple of comments caught my eye.

    Again my point being that the moment we create a rule to divide people in any area of life - including sport - we will most likely disenfranchise some number of people under the criteria that is set out. It is simply unavoidable because someone is very likely to fall directly on or between those criteria. All we can do is attempt to modify those criteria to reduce that negative impact.

    I would not say you are being "overly emotional" therefore. Such was not my intent. Rather that the emotion that drives us to do what is right has to also be tempered by rationality. I - like you - strongly suspect the women in question should have been allowed to compete. I suspect the criteria that negated their qualification was brought in to try to be inclusive to others who were negated by previous rules and criteria.

    And as I said in the second paragraph above this is where the train goes off the rails for me. The desperation to include people who were not included before - leading to the implementation of new rules and criteria that includes them but forces out others who previously qualified. If we are going to do that in any walk of life then we need to be damn sure of what we are doing, why we are doing it, and what our end goals actually are.

  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    I get how trans people are unhappy at JK Rowling and others (even though she did just say that women are a sex based class with unique experiences relating to our biology, and a specific social and political history - which isn't untrue or unfair; trans people also have a unique experience) and certainly the really venomous TERFs, who are extremely nasty and come out with awful bullsh1t (like equating being trans with sexual deviance and misogyny) but - and I know this obviously isn't from all trans people and much of it isn't from trans people at all - death threats? Rape threats? Obscene sexually violent language? Causing people to lose their livelihood? Equating people with JKR's views to nazis, fascists, the genocidal?

    Apart from how vile it is, like this is gonna help.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on

  • mod

    this isn’t a thread to discuss JK Rowling or transgenderism/trans issues/etc. please keep to the subject of discussion.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭veryangryman

    OP here.

    Meh close the thread.

  • @BaywatchHQ threadbanned

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,486 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice

    I am of the opinion that we have it all wrong regarding, radicalism, woke, conspicuity theories, and the like, it's not about evidence-based opinion or trustworthy news sources, it's what individuals want to believe, be it about welfare recipients, immigrants, women, ethnic groups its also connected to human nature, its an outlet for violence, rage, cruelty.

    There was a short news article that members of crime gangs are involved in the groups targeting asylum seekers, that's about thriving in the chaos they create and giving them an outlet for violence.