Biological males in women's sport

seamus · 16-10-2018 1:29pm

I think the most beautiful part of this whole thread is the repeated mantra about how some social media brigade is going to go crazy and shout down and criticise anyone who disagrees with this win...while in fact the only ones making any noise about this and shouting down people...are the ones who disagree with it.

This woman herself is pretty deeply embedded in transgender activism (naturally), so she's been pushing her win quite heavily.

But from what I can tell, very few "right-on" type of publications are picking it up and applauding. It's mostly the "grr, liberal snowflakes" types who are going mad about it.

Zorya · 16-10-2018 1:33pm

Wibbs wrote: »

She'll get some static for that from the usual loudhailers on the interwebs. Hopefully she'll get more widespread support, because at this stage this is more than farcical and needs to be called out for the ideological bullshit it is.

I honestly think it is too late. There is already far too much that would have to be rolled back at this stage if even some elements of what is essentially the social and cultural enactment of identity politics begin to lose ground. The rolling back process would also be so severe that I would not relish that either - it would take an authoritarian backlash. At this stage I am resigned, the world will just go on getting weirder and weirder; we are past the point of return. Might as well sit back now and watch it unfold. Black is white, grass is blue, and I will be among the mad yokes muttering in the shadows by the fire.

Zorya · 16-10-2018 1:35pm

seamus wrote: »

I think the most beautiful part of this whole thread is the repeated mantra about how some social media brigade is going to go crazy and shout down and criticise anyone who disagrees with this win...while in fact the only ones making any noise about this and shouting down people...are the ones who disagree with it.

This woman herself is pretty deeply embedded in transgender activism (naturally), so she's been pushing her win quite heavily.

But from what I can tell, very few "right-on" type of publications are picking it up and applauding. It's mostly the "grr, liberal snowflakes" types who are going mad about it.

How do you know exactly who is ''going mad about it?'' You know everyone who is responding in any way to it? As it happens polls are showing that ordinary harmless folk are fed up to the gizzards with PC truthspeak.

Gimme A Pound · 16-10-2018 1:36pm

seamus wrote: »

I think the most beautiful part of this whole thread is the repeated mantra about how some social media brigade is going to go crazy and shout down and criticise anyone who disagrees with this win...while in fact the only ones making any noise about this and shouting down people...are the ones who disagree with it.

This woman herself is pretty deeply embedded in transgender activism (naturally), so she's been pushing her win quite heavily.

But from what I can tell, very few "right-on" type of publications are picking it up and applauding. It's mostly the "grr, liberal snowflakes" types who are going mad about it.

"The most beautiful part" - I think you're enjoying going against the grain for the craic and implying people are transphobes simply for recognition of biology, even denying scientific fact. There is a word for that, begins with t...

16-10-2018 1:37pm

seamus wrote: »

I think the most beautiful part of this whole thread is the repeated mantra about how some social media brigade is going to go crazy and shout down and criticise anyone who disagrees with this win...while in fact the only ones making any noise about this and shouting down people...are the ones who disagree with it.

This woman herself is pretty deeply embedded in transgender activism (naturally), so she's been pushing her win quite heavily.

But from what I can tell, very few "right-on" type of publications are picking it up and applauding. It's mostly the "grr, liberal snowflakes" types who are going mad about it.

The self-awareness levels in this post are through the floor.

Wibbs · 16-10-2018 1:39pm

seamus wrote: »

Cut your losses here Wibbs. You've tried to argue that this isn't a niche event. Nobody on this thread would even know that a cycling championship had occurred, or that a Master's category existed in women's track cycling, had they not tried to jump on the outrage bandwagon.

This is not an event with widespread appeal. It is a niche event.

You didn't answer my question. Maybe you have some cutoff in mind before questions are asked?

Some of the basic biological facts remain. Lots of other ones are way up in the air. To claim that trans women are biologically indistinguishable from a men, especially in the area of athletic performance, is to make claims for which you have no data. It's not even an assumption you can reasonably make, given what we know about the impact of hormones on said performance.

Again your ideological position is getting in the way of your logic. Take that last sentence: In female to male transexuals where testosterone is prescribed, testosterone, an anabolic steroid as far as all sports governing bodies are concerned is banned, does that increase the individuals strength and stamina and bone density? Now you can go off yet again on a "we have no proof" run, but every single sports governing body and doctors and biologists will tell you it does. Yet you feel happy enough to let female to male competitors juice up with an otherwise banned anabolic?

It's beneath you to play the victim card and pretend you're being attacked. We can note right now that you're the person who introduced this term to the thread and applied it to yourself.

your ideological position is also affecting your memory it seems.

You. Earlier. wrote:

All the people clambering to use this as proof of an unfair advantage are exposing their own bias in this.

You are the one who first insinuated that anyone questions this nonsense is displaying bias against transexuals. Oh and just because you seem quite into the ideology of the "victim card" mindset, don't assume others are. I asked a simple question. I won't see a simple response as an "attack". Not that you gave one so we might judge.

Citation needed.

Are you really going to stand there and with a straight face claim that transitioning male to female's at 18 or 25 or 40 will somehow grow shorter, shrink ribcages, joints and bones and drop lung capacity to biological female levels? And you reckon others have a "rudimentary understanding of biology"? OK...

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 1:50pm

Wibbs wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. Maybe you have some cutoff in mind before questions are asked?

Again your ideological position is getting in the way of your logic. Take that last sentence: In female to male transexuals where testosterone is prescribed, testosterone, an anabolic steroid as far as all sports governing bodies are concerned is banned, does that increase the individuals strength and stamina and bone density? Now you can go off yet again on a "we have no proof" run, but every single sports governing body and doctors and biologists will tell you it does. Yet you feel happy enough to let female to male competitors juice up with an otherwise banned anabolic?

your ideological position is also affecting your memory it seems.

You are the one who first insinuated that anyone questions this nonsense is displaying bias against transexuals. Oh and just because you seem quite into the ideology of the "victim card" mindset, don't assume others are. I asked a simple question. I won't see a simple response as an "attack". Not that you gave one so we might judge.

Are you really going to stand there and with a straight face claim that transitioning male to female's at 18 or 25 or 40 will somehow grow shorter, shrink ribcages, joints and bones and drop lung capacity to biological female levels? And you reckon others have a "rudimentary understanding of biology"? OK...

Unless I've been using "rudimentary" wrong all these years and it actually means "non existent".

SOCIALLY, you can dress, appear, act - whatever as a woman.

BIOLOGICALLY, you cannot.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 16-10-2018 2:03pm

If a man transitions to a woman in adulthood, he will have gone through puberty and picked up some irreversible male traits. Like, I’d really hope we wouldn’t be trying to reduce the bone density of someone who is transitioning from male to female. That sounds plain dangerous. So that’s one advantage that remains. And that’s just one example.

I have a good biology degree. No PhD or anything and I don’t consider myself an expert. But I’m confident enough in my ability to parse biology-related information. Maybe my post will be taken seriously? Somehow I suspect not...

Oh and I’m all for people transitioning. I very much believe that some people feel that they were born the wrong sex. But we can’t ignore that men transitioning to women will retain some advantages that can’t be erased.

16-10-2018 2:17pm

Its a small bit like that film with Johny Knoxville, the ringer isnt it?

jmayo · 16-10-2018 2:20pm

Is That It? wrote: »

I, a fully abled body man, have decided I now identify as a disabled man (yes bigots it's a real thing, look it up).

Therefore I assume no one will object to me entering the Paralympics?

Didn't some Spaniards already do that in the basketball competition

ceadaoin. · 16-10-2018 2:38pm

Zorya wrote: »

And also if you take it to its logical conclusion lopping the boys who identify as female into female games should start from early childhood. That would be way before any puberty blockers should be used, if we don't want to be entirely monstrous to children. And cross sex hormones should not start until 16 at least from as far as I can figure out - so we are talking sports among children up to older teenage years. So female children up to puberty (at least) could be seriously disadvantaged in the biological course of events by competing in running, swimming, etc etc against children in boys bodies. The community games would be a right laugh if that sort of thing took off...nonetheless it is the logical conclusion.

In the Connecticut high school state track championships, the top 2 finishers were trans girls who don't take any hormones.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/transgender-athletes-speak-parents-petition-change-policy-compete/story?id=56071191

This will be a scholarships on the line . Females will be pushed out of the elite levels of sport. Girls and women's sport will be affected by the this from the bottom up. I think anyone who denies this will be the case must be secretly delighted by this prospect. There is no other explanation, it's blatantly obvious that males have an athletic advantage. It's the reason why sports is segregated in the first place.

ohnonotgmail · 16-10-2018 2:41pm

Is That It? wrote: »

I, a fully abled body man, have decided I now identify as a disabled man (yes bigots it's a real thing, look it up).

Therefore I assume no one will object to me entering the Paralympics?

assuming you meet the qualifying criteria then nobody will object.

ChikiChiki · 16-10-2018 2:44pm

seamus wrote: »

Yes, the social media mob with their really loud tweeting are so terrifying.

At the moment this isn't an issue, so there's no need to lose the head over it. We have plenty of scope to observe and gather data to determine if trans athletes in general have a competitive advantage.

A trans woman winning an event doesn't prove that trans people have an advantage, just that she was better than other competitors.

Actually it is an issue. Because until that data is gathered, its unfair on existing competitors. Imagine training all your life to lose to what is biologically a guy competing in a female event.

Zorya · 16-10-2018 2:47pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In the Connecticut high school state track championships, the top 2 finishers were trans girls who don't take any hormones.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/transgender-athletes-speak-parents-petition-change-policy-compete/story?id=56071191

This will be a scholarships on the line . Females will be pushed out of the elite levels of sport. Girls and women's sport will be affected by the this from the bottom up. I think anyone who denies this will be the case must be secretly delighted by this prospect. There is no other explanation, it's blatantly obvious that males have an athletic advantage. It's the reason why sports is segregated in the first place.

Yes, of course. It's the end of serious female sports particularly at school and college level. But...bone density, bruh :rolleyes: and testosterone or something..

I've been trying to think of an equivalent for male sporting fields but I can only conjure up bears or orangutans identifying as human males, competing in wrestling and looking offended if audiences don't cheer themselves raw when the orangutans win...hahha

. (But I see now that unfortunately bear wrestling is outlawed in 20 states as of 2006

)

LollipopJimmy · 16-10-2018 2:49pm

Zorya wrote: »

Yes, of course. It's the end of serious female sports particularly at school and college level. But...bone density, bruh :rolleyes: and testosterone or something..

I've been trying to think of an equivalent for male sporting fields but I can only conjure up bears or orangutans identifying as human males, competing in wrestling and looking offended if audiences don't cheer themselves raw when the orangutans win...hahha . (But I see now that unfortunately bear wrestling is outlawed in 20 states as of 2006 )

Khabib Nurmagomedov wrestled bears as a child in Russia

wexie · 16-10-2018 2:49pm

Zorya wrote: »

(But I see now that unfortunately bear wrestling is outlawed in 20 states as of 2006 )

You mean it's legal in the others? :eek:

bloodless_coup · 16-10-2018 2:50pm

I identify as a 13 year old. Started playing under 14 hurling again. It's great fun.

ceadaoin. · 16-10-2018 2:53pm

Also, the cyclist in question here doesn't think she should even have to reduce her testosterone levels to compete against women. She thinks having to do this is a violation of her human rights. Describes herself as a "6ft, 200lb powerlifter" and thinks competing against women is a level playing field. Definitely not a cheat. Nope.

Mean Laqueefa · 16-10-2018 2:54pm

doylefe wrote: »

I identify as a 13 year old. Started playing under 14 hurling again. It's great fun.

Pffff missed a trick ya could have played camogie, depending on your mood that day of course

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 2:54pm

doylefe wrote: »

I identify as a 13 year old. Started playing under 14 hurling again. It's great fun.

I once said (jokingly, as a reaction to the bat **** craziness around me) that I wasn't actually female but that I identified as a gay man in a woman's body.

Most of my colleagues agreed and one said I was "brave" for speaking up.

It's not that we've gone too far down the rabbit hole, we've sent out change of address cards.

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 2:56pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Also, the cyclist in question here doesn't think she should even have to reduce her testosterone levels to compete against women. She thinks having to do this is a violation of her human rights. Describes herself as a "6ft, 200lb powerlifter" and thinks competing against women is a level playing field. Definitely not a cheat. Nope.

Seriously ?????

Cheat. End of. Caster Semanya, the runner, had to go through a test -

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports

- but none of these "female" athletes do.

Discrimination, no ?

ceadaoin. · 16-10-2018 4:25pm

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Seriously ?????

Cheat. End of. Caster Semanya, the runner, had to go through a test - - but none of these "female" athletes do.

Discrimination, no ?

Yep. Women just have to "deal with it". It's not about the years of training that they have put in, and their right to compete on a level playing field, it's about her feelings. If you disagree you are just like a racist.

“This is bigger than sports,” McKinnon told USA Today. “It’s about human rights. By catering to cisgender people’s views, that furthers transgender people’s oppression.

“When it comes to extending rights to a minority population, why would we ask the majority? I bet a lot of white people were p*ssed off when we desegregated sports racially and allowed black people. But they had to deal with it.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2018/01/11/these-transgender-cyclists-have-olympian-disagreement-how-define-fairness/995434001/

Gravelly · 16-10-2018 4:35pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yep. Women just have to "deal with it". It's not about the years of training that they have put in, and their right to compete on a level playing field, it's about her feelings. If you disagree you are just like a racist.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2018/01/11/these-transgender-cyclists-have-olympian-disagreement-how-define-fairness/995434001/

McKinnon sounds like some piece of work.

Zorya · 16-10-2018 4:51pm

Rachel winning bigly some more...but unaware of the background irony :pac:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dplx0JeWwAANuWG.jpg

DancingFlames · 16-10-2018 4:58pm

If biological men are now allowed to compete in women's sports, then we should do away with segregating the genders in sports altogether. What's the point in having women's sports at all if even the definition of a woman is up for debate?

I'd personally love to see female athletes getting the same amount of tv screen time as men. I've never understood why we've segregated sports by gender anyway. Yes, people say that it has to do with men being "stronger" but then why do we segregate women from sports that don't require any physical contact like running or swimming? Why do we segregate women from sports that don't even require strength like golf or chess???

DEFTLEFTHAND · 16-10-2018 5:07pm

DancingFlames wrote: »

If biological men are now allowed to compete in women's sports, then we should do away with segregating the genders in sports altogether. What's the point in having women's sports at all if even the definition of a woman is up for debate?

I'd personally love to see female athletes getting the same amount of tv screen time as men. I've never understood why we've segregated sports by gender anyway. Yes, people say that it has to do with men being "stronger" but then why do we segregate women from sports that don't require any physical contact like running or swimming? Why do we segregate women from sports that don't even require strength like golf or chess???

Because women deserve to have their sports.

Take away segregation and a woman will never win a world championship or Olympic medal in any discipline ever again. Have you ever compared male and female times in the likes of running or swimming at the elite level?

As well as being bigger stronger faster men on average also possess superior spacial awareness skills and hand eye co-ordination (hunting instincts they evolved with). This is why they dominate the likes of pool, snooker, darts etc.

DancingFlames · 16-10-2018 5:15pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Because women deserve to have their sports.

Take away segregation and a woman will never win a world championship or Olympic medal in any discipline ever again. Have you ever compared male and female times in the likes of running or swimming at the elite level?

As well as being bigger stronger faster men on average also possible superior spacial awareness skills and hand eye co-ordination (hunting instincts they evolved with). This is why they dominate the likes of pool, snooker, darts etc.

But that doesn't answer the question: if biological men are allowed to compete in women's sports now, what's the point in having women's sports at all?

ceadaoin. · 16-10-2018 5:15pm

DancingFlames wrote: »

If biological men are now allowed to compete in women's sports, then we should do away with segregating the genders in sports altogether. What's the point in having women's sports at all if even the definition of a woman is up for debate?

I'd personally love to see female athletes getting the same amount of tv screen time as men. I've never understood why we've segregated sports by gender anyway. Yes, people say that it has to do with men being "stronger" but then why do we segregate women from sports that don't require any physical contact like running or swimming? Why do we segregate women from sports that don't even require strength like golf or chess???

So you think women can compete against the likes of Usain bolt in running just because there is no contact? Spoiler alert - they can't. That's biology. The reason women fought for their own events was to be get a chance at competition in their own right, on a level playing field. Taking that away is not progress

Women's sport can get equal screen time and be taken seriously without letting men in.

Gravelly · 16-10-2018 5:17pm

DancingFlames wrote: »

If biological men are now allowed to compete in women's sports, then we should do away with segregating the genders in sports altogether. What's the point in having women's sports at all if even the definition of a woman is up for debate?

I'd personally love to see female athletes getting the same amount of tv screen time as men. I've never understood why we've segregated sports by gender anyway. Yes, people say that it has to do with men being "stronger" but then why do we segregate women from sports that don't require any physical contact like running or swimming? Why do we segregate women from sports that don't even require strength like golf or chess???

Because women would not be competitive in the vast majority of sports (in fact I can't think of one in which they would be). It would be the end of mass participation of women in sports, the end of sports scholarships for women, and the end of young girls getting the health and wellbeing benefit of sports.

While we're at it why not get rid of weight divisions in boxing, make disabled athletes compete against the able-bodied, and make 8 year olds compete against adults.

soups05 · 16-10-2018 5:22pm

Zorya wrote: »

Rachel winning bigly some more...but unaware of the background irony :pac:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dplx0JeWwAANuWG.jpg

who is yer man in the middle???

:pac::D

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 16-10-2018 5:22pm

Doing away with women’s sports would be terrible. On a level playing field, the races can be just as exciting. It doesn’t matter if men are faster and stronger. Racing like with like can produce incredibly exciting finishes.

ceadaoin. · 16-10-2018 5:24pm

Gravelly wrote: »

Because women would not be competitive in the vast majority of sports (in fact I can't think of one in which they would be). It would be the end of mass participation of women in sports, the end of sports scholarships for women, and the end of young girls getting the health and wellbeing benefit of sports.

While we're at it why not get rid of weight divisions in boxing, make disabled athletes compete against the able-bodied, and make 8 year olds compete against adults.

The one sport I can think of where women perform equally or better is ski jumping. And they had to fight for it to be included in the winter Olympics, that only happened in 2014 and even then they still get less events than men.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/international/ct-olympics-women-ski-jumpers-equality-20180210-story.html

Can't have women getting ahead of themselves and being better at something that men now can we! Actally, maybe those women should all identify as men for the next winter Olympics...

Gravelly · 16-10-2018 5:26pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The one sport I can think of where women perform equally or better is ski jumping. And they had to fight for it to be included in the winter Olympics, that only happened in 2014 and even then they still get less events than men.

You have me on that one, ski jumping would be one of the few sports I know nothing about!

Bet you won't have a load of these lads queuing up to enter that then.

Danzy · 16-10-2018 5:27pm

seamus wrote: »

Blah blah blah.

Read it again.

You can't prove that this woman won because of physiology. And not because of other factors, like you know, actually training.

A single instance of a trans person winning a relatively niche event does not rationally follow that she won because she was trans.

All the people clambering to use this as proof of an unfair advantage are exposing their own bias in this.

Hard to know if you are trolling or are one of the numerous loolahs* that are increasingly dominating the Left in the Western World.

Maybe there isn't a difference between trolls and activists like that.

*No disrespect intended.

Danzy · 16-10-2018 5:29pm

soups05 wrote: »

who is yer man in the middle???

:pac::D

The one with the Penis?

That is a woman you fascist.

LollipopJimmy · 16-10-2018 5:31pm

Wait... Dick Lane Velodrome? Nobody???

Gravelly · 16-10-2018 5:33pm

Danzy wrote: »

The one with the Penis?

That is a woman you fascist.

In the words of Reg from The Life of Brian "It's symbolic of his struggle against reality"

DEFTLEFTHAND · 16-10-2018 5:33pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The one sport I can think of where women perform equally or better is ski jumping. And they had to fight for it to be included in the winter Olympics, that only happened in 2014 and even then they still get less events than men.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/international/ct-olympics-women-ski-jumpers-equality-20180210-story.html

Can't have women getting ahead of themselves and being better at something that men now can we! Actally, maybe those women should all identify as men for the next winter Olympics...

There's still a big gap in the world records though.

Longest male jump ever recorded is 832 ft and longest female is 656ft.

Gravelly · 16-10-2018 5:34pm

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Wait... Dick Lane Velodrome? Nobody???

T'was already mentioned in the first pic - I'd have been in there long before now if it hadn't.

Mean Laqueefa · 16-10-2018 5:34pm

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Wait... Dick Lane Velodrome? Nobody???

**** you Jimmy, i identify as velodrome !

Gravelly · 16-10-2018 5:35pm

Mean Laqueefa wrote: »

**** you Jimmy, i identify as velodrome !

Would be worse if you identified as Dick Lane.

Oranage2 · 16-10-2018 5:37pm

Crazy and unfair, there should be like a special special Olympics for these type of People.

Omackeral · 16-10-2018 8:06pm

DancingFlames wrote: »

I've never understood why we've segregated sports by gender anyway. Yes, people say that it has to do with men being "stronger" but then why do we segregate women from sports that don't require any physical contact like running or swimming? Why do we segregate women from sports that don't even require strength like golf or chess???

Try tennis as a litmus test.

An event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager". The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park, after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2. Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun". Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.

2 Scoops · 16-10-2018 8:11pm

seamus wrote: »

You can't prove that. It's pure opinion.

Sweet jesus, is this what delusion looks like in it's finest form?

SEPT 23 1989 · 16-10-2018 8:26pm

Real women must feel very uncomfortable with this nonsense

0cp71eyxkb94qf · 16-10-2018 8:42pm

This post has been deleted.

Zorya · 16-10-2018 8:53pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Real women must feel very uncomfortable with this nonsense

To be a little more serious responding to you - and I don't intend to speak for any other women bar myself. ...
I haven't hit on a concept yet that might convey something of how it might feel if this kind of thing was happening for men - it is a strange mix of honest amusement, foreboding, incredulity, and occasionally being downright pissed off.
It is not just about the sports stuff, though it's a good example as it is very visible.
Though it might be unpleasant to admit (or maybe even impermissible at this stage! what the hell do I know!) but women are the weaker sex in some ways ( I know this) and thus men as the stronger sex could never be threatened similarly - not that I can think of so far. I mean weaker physically and in some limited senses sociologically (in that, for example, we are more vulnerable when pregnant and raising infants, or we are more vulnerable to sexual assault, and we may struggle still against some remnants of historical disadvantage that silences decisive response, though these remnants are vastly over-stated).
From where I am looking there is an erasure going on, slow but steady. It creeps into public policy, cultural activities and administrative language. So on and so forth.
But the horrible irony is that a lot of it is part and parcel of radical feminism eating its own.

Anyways I'm sure other women may disagree...I am out of step in most things it seems.

Danzy · 16-10-2018 8:58pm

Zorya wrote: »

To be a little more serious responding to you - and I don't intend to speak for any other women bar myself. ...
I haven't hit on a concept yet that might convey something of how it might feel if this kind of thing was happening for men - it is a strange mix of honest amusement, foreboding, incredulity, and occasionally being downright pissed off.
It is not just about the sports stuff, though it's a good example as it is very visible.
Though it might be unpleasant to admit (or maybe even impermissible at this stage! what the hell do I know!) but women are the weaker sex in some ways ( I know this) and thus men as the stronger sex could never be threatened similarly - not that I can think of so far. I mean weaker physically and in some limited senses sociologically (in that, for example, we are more vulnerable when pregnant and raising infants, or we are more vulnerable to sexual assault, and we may struggle still against some remnants of historical disadvantage that silences decisive response, though these remnants are vastly over-stated).
From where I am looking there is an erasure going on, slow but steady. It creeps into public policy, cultural activities and administrative language. So on and so forth.
But the horrible irony is that a lot of it is part and parcel of radical feminism eating its own.

Anyways I'm sure other women may disagree...I am out of step in most things it seems.

Feminism has become a niche market, gone off on a tangent from most people.

ceadaoin. · 16-10-2018 9:16pm

Zorya wrote: »

To be a little more serious responding to you - and I don't intend to speak for any other women bar myself. ...
I haven't hit on a concept yet that might convey something of how it might feel if this kind of thing was happening for men - it is a strange mix of honest amusement, foreboding, incredulity, and occasionally being downright pissed off.
It is not just about the sports stuff, though it's a good example as it is very visible.
Though it might be unpleasant to admit (or maybe even impermissible at this stage! what the hell do I know!) but women are the weaker sex in some ways ( I know this) and thus men as the stronger sex could never be threatened similarly - not that I can think of so far. I mean weaker physically and in some limited senses sociologically (in that, for example, we are more vulnerable when pregnant and raising infants, or we are more vulnerable to sexual assault, and we may struggle still against some remnants of historical disadvantage that silences decisive response, though these remnants are vastly over-stated).
From where I am looking there is an erasure going on, slow but steady. It creeps into public policy, cultural activities and administrative language. So on and so forth.
But the horrible irony is that a lot of it is part and parcel of radical feminism eating its own.

Anyways I'm sure other women may disagree...I am out of step in most things it seems.

People who stand up to this are called the radical feminists ("terfs", you're probably one now to some people after your above post) And youre right, it's not just about sports. its the erasure of women and women's rights. On the back of trans rights activism we have had:

- women physically assaulted by males for attending meetings about proposed "self ID" in the UK
-venues of said meetings receiving bomb threats
- masked people trying to prevent women entering these meetings
- women being told en masse that they should die/get raped/burned and failing that, suck a dick (preferably a lady one).
-males holding "women's officer" positions in one UK political party and taking up places on all women shortlists
- women in prison and homeless/domestic violence shelters assaulted and sexually harrassed by males
-the dictionary definition of "woman" being deemed hate speech

Its clear that there is a strong thread of misogyny running through this movement that seems to hold a lot of sway politically and socially, far more than what plain old women have.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 16-10-2018 9:17pm

Danzy wrote: »

Feminism has become a niche market, gone off on a tangent from most people.

The whole trans ideology undercut a lot of existing feminism.

Biological males in women's sport

Comments