There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
[Resolved] Banned from Transgender people in women's sports thread
-
29-08-2024 2:37pm#1
ETA: I forgot to link to the thread. It's in CA:
————-I would like to dispute this banning, which came after two warnings. I was in the process of discussing the first with the mod (over a period of about a month, not just a couple of days), when I got a complete ban after the second incident.
Here was the first warning received, for the following post :
As you can see, I did not misgender anyone, I simply posted a scientific description of DSDs from an evolutionary biologist. I did say “they are men” – but how can I explain my position that these are men in women’s sports if I have to pretend to believe that they are women? It makes no sense.
That’s why I didn’t accept that the rules posted can or should be applied literally: they consider ONLY the feelings of transgender women, and ride roughshod over women’s rights. The link Beasty posted to me that says it’s about “not being a dick” show that the rules do not fit the situation – because I’m not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings, I’m just trying to point out that women have rights too. Boards needs to find a way for women whose opinion is based on women's rights to express that opinion without being banned for defending women's rights.
Below is the PM exchange which followed:
To which I never got any further reply.
Instead this happened (below):
Uncivil to the President (24 hour forum ban)
Post edited by Spear on5
Comments
-
And again, no further answer since then.
To be clear, I support trans rights - as long as they do not conflict with women's rights. In that case, there needs to be discussion about the importance of each group's rights and requests. Not bans, which is what's happening here.
For example, I have no objection to using someone's “preferred” pronouns under most circumstances, regardless of how I perceive them.
But there are times when doing that is not a neutral act – it’s taking one side of a debate about women’s rights. In the case of males playing sports in the female category, how the male perceives themselves to be is irrelevant – bodies are what play sports, not feelings about gender.
And I won’t even get into things like prisoners declaring themselves to be women, so they can get into a women's prison (eg Isla Bryson), or cases that end up skewing statistics on male violence against women (multiple instances).
The current policy – when applied literally and across the board - doesn't allow for that problem to be discussed at all. That’s why it’s taking the side that ignores women’s rights as unimportant.
I realise that this almost certainly isn’t going to change in the near future, because when so many men were cheering on a male beating up women in a boxing ring it’s clear that male violence against women is not something that many men care much about, but, ever optimistic, I would like to know whether the rules here can be clarified so that it becomes possible to hold the position I do, which is only about women’s rights, not against transgender people per se, and a perfectly legal position, without constantly being sanctioned?
Or, if the alternative is that women aren’t allowed to object to men beating up women if the man concerns thinks he’s a woman, then I’d like to see that made explicit. Because the whole “It’s just about not being a dick” thing misses the point by a million miles.
IOW, what could I have said in those two posts that were sanctioned that would have been acceptable? Other than “She’s a woman because she says so, even though the CAS has found otherwise”? Or “Imane Khelif is a woman despite having male chromosomes and male punching strength, because she identifies as a woman”?
Another example is that Amnesty International were ridiculed recently for posting that girls in Afghanistan are punished for the “crime of identifying as a girl” – so were they being transphobic when they quietly changed that and posted “being” a girl instead? If it is correct to accept that laws targeting women are not based on how they identify, but on their biological sex, what is wrong with accepting that the same criterion, biological sex, has a significance for women in lots of ways, and that males simply cannot just “identify” into it? Not even males with DSDs who may genuinely have been wrongly assigned a sex at birth. Or is that not a thing for people with DSDs but only for transgender people?
Uncivil to the President (24 hour forum ban)
11 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
