Transgender - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[ShanDog]

I dislike bigot billionaires that use their money and reach to spread hate and misinformation

You know, like a non campaigner

This implying that I'm a campaigner?

 

[Gralin]

This implying that I'm a campaigner?

I mean if you like a bigot billionaire spreading hate I have to ask what non campaigner reason works

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Gotta hate strong, opinionated women, amiright?

If, and I do mean 'IF' here, their strong opinions are of the kind that want to exclude groups of people for no good reason then yes. They should be reviled.

Fairness in sport is a matter that is yet to be answered, and I think people questioning the parameters of what is fair and to whom is valid as long as the tone is right. There must be respect in the debate and yes, it goes both ways.

Equality and inclusion in a larger societal sense, which is what the trans-exclusionary radical feminists seem to be arguing against in a kind of 'gender nationalism', should not be up for debate. Transgender people are people just trying to recalibrate how they feel inside with how they were born outside and then live their lives accordingly.

They have every right to pursue happiness in life as a whole person. The one they feel to be. The one they want to be.

How could ANYONE argue against that?

 

[Chief]

Again, you tell me i'm wrong only to then repeat what i said.


Sorry, what!?! Why we would exclude her from competing? Because she's tall? I mean, what about Ian Thorpe's big feet? Is that an "unfair advantage"?

So sick of people wanting their narrow standards of femininity reflected in women's sport. Sigh

Do you see what you're doing?

I do. It's boring.

 

[Chief]

I won't be called a campaigner multiple times by a mod and have reports of this ignored.

You called us all misogynists.

 

[Beerfish]

I'm trying to recall a previous instance of her doing it though

usually she's like go ahead sue me I'm a billionaire

it could be unrelated

it could also be that JKR is in some actual legal trouble and has been told by her lawyers to STFU

Saw something yesterday confirming Rowling and Musk have been named. There are others but the article didn't specify. It kind of hinted one of the others may be Trump. Shocking I know.

 

[faible]

Ah yes, I'm very sure JKR is super duper concerned that Khelif, from Algeria, made a complaint - likely without naming who it was against - to the French Police, about something said on an American-owned platform, in case they decided to charge her with... something, and it goes to the court of... somewhere. Scary stuff.

There is no chance that Khelif would sue anyone in a civil court for libel. That would require everyone to show their hands.

Imane Khelif 'names Elon Musk and JK Rowling' in cyberbullying lawsuit

The Olympic gold medalist's attorney confirmed that the Tesla mogul and Harry Potter author were both named in the criminal complaint posted to French authorities last week.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Beerfish]

That's the one.

 

[skipper kelly]

Well this took a sad turn. A lot of us v them.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Well this took a sad turn. A lot of us v them.

I know it's nuanced, this question of fairness and safety in sport. But the larger question of transgender people in society is one of opposing forces. Inclusionists vs exclusionists. The sport question is nuanced yes, but there is considerable overlap between the smaller question and the larger one.

Several societal exclusionists have taken it on themselves to make sport their battleground to force a win, any kind of win, for the exclusionists in the face of progressive inclusionism.

Hence you will see a great deal of 'us' vs 'them in this topic.

 

[evolved2]

I know it's nuanced, this question of fairness and safety in sport. But the larger question of transgender people in society is one of opposing forces. Inclusionists vs exclusionists. The sport question is nuanced yes, but there is considerable overlap between the smaller question and the larger one.

Several societal exclusionists have taken it on themselves to make sport their battleground to force a win, any kind of win, for the exclusionists in the face of progressive inclusionism.

Hence you will see a great deal of 'us' vs 'them in this topic.

Do you feel that inclusivists are considering all physiological differences, advantages obtained through puberty, safety of females, and even the opinion of females?

Gender identity is such an arbitrary means of categorising sports, even if means of minimising biochemical differences are employed.

There's a lot of men telling females what they can and can't do, and then calling feminists radicals for it. I see parallels with the pro-life movement here.

There are ways of including transgender people in sports and accommodating them in life while accounting for both sex and gender based differences.

 

[Chief]

There are ways of including transgender people in sports and accommodating them in life while accounting for both sex and gender based differences.

We probably have to start with an agreement on what these differences actually are.

Assumptions about "going through male puberty" are addressed, showing that it's not as simple as people think, but people cling to them anyway.

 

[Chief]

I don't know what the lol was for The Tilt

Perhaps enlighten us.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Inclusionists vs exclusionists.

Then the question begs what is the motive for being either.

Are you an inclusive person only for minorities with a penchant for unrealistic outcomes (which could be exclusive of others for that outcome), or are you inclusive in genuine belief that compromise between majority and minority can be met?

Are you an exclusive person bc you're a bigoted ahole or are you exclusive because you have genuine concerns for another minority?

This is the crux of the issue (or any divisive social issue), on both sides of the aisle on this topic, it's all about dismissing the other sides argument, depending on the side of the aisle you're on, with either 'bigot' or 'impractical idealist for the few'.

The for's will try and dismiss any integrity argument with slurs like 'bigot' or 'transphobe' and the no's will argue 'life isn't fair, so let's make it less for less people not the majority' < cold and blunt.

Rarely in these divisive social issues is there a compromise position, which is necessary to reach a practical outcome.

There in lies the problem.

 

[Gralin]

Then the question begs what is the motive for being either.

Are you an inclusive person only for minorities with a penchant for unrealistic outcomes (which could be exclusive of others for that outcome), or are you inclusive in genuine belief that compromise between majority and minority can be met?

Are you an exclusive person bc you're a bigoted ahole or are you exclusive because you have genuine concerns for another minority?

This is the crux of the issue (or any divisive social issue), on both sides of the aisle on this topic, it's all about dismissing the other sides argument, depending on the side of the aisle you're on, with either 'bigot' or 'impractical idealist for the few'.

The for's will try and dismiss any integrity argument with slurs like 'bigot' or 'transphobe' and the no's will argue 'life isn't fair, so let's make it less for less people not the majority' < cold and blunt.

Rarely in these divisive social issues is there a compromise position, which is necessary to reach a practical outcome.

There in lies the problem.

this reasoning only works if you believe there are competing rights at stake, that one groups rights have to win over the other group and that someone is going to "win" and someone is going to "lose"

this position is the basis or pretty much every single "culture war"

that progress and inclusion and a more accepting society is built off of the majority losing out for a minority

like every single one of these issues that's it, its been framed as one group winning and one group losing

its framed as the majority losing out for the minority

and then that position is used to attack regardless of validity

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Do you feel that inclusivists are considering all physiological differences, advantages obtained through puberty, safety of females, and even the opinion of females?

Gender identity is such an arbitrary means of categorising sports, even if means of minimising biochemical differences are employed.

This is why I said the question of transgender competitors in sport is nuanced - there are still questions that need to be answered. Science has to provide those answers, not the ideologists of either side.

Sport is just a slice of the larger societal pie though.

There's a lot of men telling females what they can and can't do, and then calling feminists radicals for it. I see parallels with the pro-life movement here.

Years ago it was uppity blacks ordering us whites to give them their 'rights'. We ruled society then, see, so those 'rights' were ours to give them. IF we saw fit. When those radicals made noise we criminalised it. In many nations we beat them down in the streets. Sometimes, we killed them.

It took race-traitor whites pushing for so-called 'civil rights' and 'equality' alongside the black radicals before things changed and our exclusive paradise was destroyed forever. Now we can't go back again.

Sad, don't you think?

There are ways of including transgender people in sports and accommodating them in life while accounting for both sex and gender based differences.

Getting back to the smaller slice of the pie, again it's vital for the science to speak on the subject before any final rulings take place. For the science to speak there must be results. For there to be results there must be competition. For there to be competition there must be competitors. To measure the competitors there must be inclusion.

All of this needs to be conducted at the elite level. At lower levels competitors will know that they compete for exclusion, and this will definitely shade results. Those for exclusion will try even harder. Those against may not try at all. At the elite level? It's all about the record. The quickest time. The longest distance.

The greatest motivation is always at the elite level, not the lower ones. It's the elite that must be tested.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Rarely in these divisive social issues is there a compromise position, which is necessary to reach a practical outcome.

There in lies the problem.

I'm an inclusionist in most societal facets. In sport I acknowledge that there are answers here that we need to explore. The only logical compromise position is to let the science speak. Cold, logical, politically neutral science.

 

[Gralin]

I'm an inclusionist in most societal facets. In sport I acknowledge that there are answers here that we need to explore. The only logical compromise position is to let the science speak. Cold, logical, politically neutral science.

The only issue with this is that the science is unlikely to be politically neutral or definitive

 

[Gethelred]

Then the question begs what is the motive for being either.

Are you an inclusive person only for minorities with a penchant for unrealistic outcomes (which could be exclusive of others for that outcome), or are you inclusive in genuine belief that compromise between majority and minority can be met?

Are you an exclusive person bc you're a bigoted ahole or are you exclusive because you have genuine concerns for another minority?

This is the crux of the issue (or any divisive social issue), on both sides of the aisle on this topic, it's all about dismissing the other sides argument, depending on the side of the aisle you're on, with either 'bigot' or 'impractical idealist for the few'.

The for's will try and dismiss any integrity argument with slurs like 'bigot' or 'transphobe' and the no's will argue 'life isn't fair, so let's make it less for less people not the majority' < cold and blunt.

Rarely in these divisive social issues is there a compromise position, which is necessary to reach a practical outcome.

There in lies the problem.

... I'm fighting the urge to be rude, so instead I'll say this: I don't think you have anywhere near the grasp on the issues here you would like possess to be speaking so unequivocally. If you had firmer grounding in any of the issues you pontificate on in this threads or at the very least were willing to acknowledge the shortcomings of basing your worldview/opinions on purely what you see and say, you could be taken a good deal more seriously as a poster.

That you cannot is purely to your own detriment, because you cannot see the extent to which you are out of your depth.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The only issue with this is that the science is unlikely to be politically neutral or definitive

Well yeah, the results are gonna be weaponised, especially by the fringes. I'm going to assume that trans athletes and the vast majority of their supporters won't react savagely if the science says they have a notable-beyond-natural statistical advantage. I'd assume they'd accept open and easily-checked findings at face value.

Those against? The exclusionists? Their fringes, radical exclusionary feminists employing ethno-exclusionary neo-Nazis as hired muscle at their rallies? Who knows how they'd react.

 

[Carringbush2010]

... I'm fighting the urge to be rude, so instead I'll say this: I don't think you have anywhere near the grasp on the issues here you would like possess to be speaking so unequivocally. If you had firmer grounding in any of the issues you pontificate on in this threads or at the very least were willing to acknowledge the shortcomings of basing your worldview/opinions on purely what you see and say, you could be taken a good deal more seriously as a poster.

That you cannot is purely to your own detriment, because you cannot see the extent to which you are out of your depth.

Of course Gethy I was talking about any issue in general, not withstanding, will respectfully say that you're pointing out that I'm not an expert 'in this particular subject', guilty as charged and to be honest nor are you or anyone else on this thread, cept maybe kirsti

I'm fighting the urge not to be rude, so I'll say this instead, you're tryna dismiss my very neutral standpoint without even realizing it.

Not surprised.

 

[CM86]

Have we all agreed that it's hateful rhetoric to refuse entry to a bathroom based on gender identity?



If Imane Khelif can have a period as a woman, is she too woke?


Finally. When is it ok to call out trans-hatred?

 

[CM86]

I was talking about any issue in general

Then the question begs what is the motive for being either.

Are you an inclusive person only for minorities with a penchant for unrealistic outcomes (which could be exclusive of others for that outcome), or are you inclusive in genuine belief that compromise between majority and minority can be met?

Are you an exclusive person bc you're a bigoted ahole or are you exclusive because you have genuine concerns for another minority?

This is the crux of the issue (or any divisive social issue), on both sides of the aisle on this topic, it's all about dismissing the other sides argument, depending on the side of the aisle you're on, with either 'bigot' or 'impractical idealist for the few'.

The for's will try and dismiss any integrity argument with slurs like 'bigot' or 'transphobe' and the no's will argue 'life isn't fair, so let's make it less for less people not the majority' < cold and blunt.

Rarely in these divisive social issues is there a compromise position, which is necessary to reach a practical outcome.

There in lies the problem.

Apply your theory to practice in one of the more modern day scenarios then.

Segregation.

Inclusive vs exclusive.

What's the compromise?
What's the unrealistic outcome?
What are the genuine concerns that you feel could have validated the continuation of segregation?


If you feel my questioning is absurd, please reflect on your statement.

 

[Carringbush2010]

What's the compromise?
What's the unrealistic outcome?

Well that's a super broad question, wanna narrow it down a bit?

What are the genuine concerns that you feel could have validated the continuation of segregation?

Validated? Concerns? Ooh boy!

Are you suggesting I want segregation?

I'm not advocating, merely pointing out segregation is.

 

[Gethelred]

Of course Gethy I was talking about any issue in general, not withstanding, will respectfully say that you're pointing out that I'm not an expert 'in this particular subject', guilty as charged and to be honest nor are you or anyone else on this thread, cept maybe kirsti

You've missed the point, because you didn't read the entire post. From the post that is barely two paragraphs long:

... I'm fighting the urge to be rude, so instead I'll say this: I don't think you have anywhere near the grasp on the issues here you would like possess to be speaking so unequivocally. If you had firmer grounding in any of the issues you pontificate on in this threads or at the very least were willing to acknowledge the shortcomings of basing your worldview/opinions on purely what you see and say, you could be taken a good deal more seriously as a poster.

I don't require you to be an expert, CB.

I'm fighting the urge not to be rude, so I'll say this instead, you're tryna dismiss my very neutral standpoint without even realizing it.

This reads as a child petuantly telling an adult, "You just want me to shush!"

I've not told you to shut it. I've not silenced you in any way. Quite literally, all I have said is that you need to be less definitive with your position. We've seen more or less the same thing play out multiple times - in the Cheese Wars thread when you insisted that Coon to Cheer was a meritless choice; in the What's wrong with Nationalism thread when you said that there was nothing wrong with loving your country; when you said in the Islam thread all of a day ago that you disliked the negative connotation of the word patriarch - that you demonstrate extremely shallow understanding of initial concepts coupled with an inability to move beyond that.

Just take it slow. Take a deep breath. Try to understand for a bit, rather than lashing out. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Carringbush, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.