Trans Women in Sport

mic wrote: Not sure what got your knickers in such a twist, Karl, but my ‘deliberate misinterpretation’ merely serves as yet another example of being unable to ask questions without people going off on one. ‘Good faith’? How about some benefit of doubt? I mean, I started this thread precisely so that those of us exposed to ‘transphobic’ attitudes and opinions in the media and society at large can ask questions and gain understanding about a complex issue. You could have chosen to correct my apparent misunderstanding of your words, instead of being abusive.

Oh shut up, you've had hundreds of posts worth of your questions being answered in this thread, and the last one you made. You're just taking the piss now.

mic wrote:Your professional opinion on HRT and transitioning (“most trans women”) doesn’t address trans women who choose not to transition. If trans women who transition are “biologically female, too”, then trans women who do not transition must not be biologically female, which is a key understanding because, if trans women are women wether they transition or not, then they should not be required to transition in order to compete in women’s sport (which I think was the point being made by South Park).

No, the point of the South Park episode was to parrot the "trans women athletes are really huge hairy men who want to beat up women" far-right talking point.

There is nuance in what stage of transition should be required to compete in a sport at the highest level, which depends on what that sport decides it wants to achieve by having a separate league. Curling? I can't see a reason to worry there. Mixed martial arts? Maybe you need to have some tests and regulations. I lean heavily towards inclusivity where possible. And we've discussed all that in this thread already. Why didn't you read it before? Again, I think you are just taking the piss.

mic wrote:‘I identify as X’ jokes are old-hat, but even as society becomes more accustomed to trans people, the issue of self-identification remains problematic.

Are you unironically trying to paint the attack helicopter joke as social commentary? I hate to repeat myself a third time, but even for a self-proclaimed ignorant person this is not a defensible contribution. Think about what you're saying. Try harder.

mic wrote:What should be done with Flame Munroe and other trans women who reject the... sanctity (?) of self-identification in favour of a more practical approach, insisting that they are ‘female impersonators’ and as such should not be allowed to compete in women’s sport?

You've just regurgitated a stupid TERF talking point that isn't even relevant to the discussion. "Self-identification" isn't used by e.g. the IAAF, the threshold is whether or not you've been on HRT for a while, which is probably a reasonable starting point for that sport and what it wants to achieve with its two leagues. (It's not perfect of course and I certainly think Caster Semenya should be included without hassle or harassment.)

mic wrote:I’m not saying that Contrapoints has made such assertions, but Natalie Wynn has been in trouble with the trans community for making statements which reveal her... rational perspective and I’ve always thought Contrapoints works so well precisely because Natalie appreciates the absurdity (her word).

The recent controversy with Natalie is that she has been a bit dismissive of the needs and experiences of nonbinary people, and recently worked on a project with Buck Angel who is pretty openly hostile to nonbinary people. Again, it's not really relevant to anything you've said.

mic wrote:If she can’t get it right, what chance do I have?

Just don't take the piss! You don't have to come here every couple of months, conveniently forget everything that was said to you last time, then vomit all the weird bigoted nonsense you've been absorbing. You don't have to try to "gotcha" people all the time. What you're doing here isn't debate, it's just gooseberry fool, and it's really strawberry floating weird.

Go ahead, quote that last sentence and nothing else and play the victim like in your last post.

Karl, Karl, KARL! Be still my dog of war. I understand your pain. We've all lost someone we love. But we do it my way! We do it my way. Fear is our ally. The gasoline will be ours. Then you shall have your revenge.

Grumpy David wrote:Most of the people who quoted me didn't watch the episode but just the YouTube clip so didn't recognise I was referring to a specific quote.

Quelle strawberry floating surprise, like I said, why share the clip then? The full episode isn't freely available. Why not include the text you're actually referring to. I surmise you did that deliberately because it's super easy to generate a load of illicit responses to you half-fat post and then whine about the responses being half-fat.

1/troll

Green Gecko wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:Most of the people who quoted me didn't watch the episode but just the YouTube clip so didn't recognise I was referring to a specific quote.

Quelle strawberry floating surprise, like I said, why share the clip then? The full episode isn't freely available. Why not include the text you're actually referring to. I surmise you did that deliberately because it's super easy to generate a load of illicit responses to you half-fat post and then whine about the responses being half-fat.

1/troll

This post reads weird. Are you drunk?

Why share the clip? It's to encourage you to watch the episode. You can freely obtain the episode. I did share the text but you would have less reason to watch the episode.

I don't understand half-fat? Is this Internet slang?

I'm not ever posting drunk, it's a simple metaphor I made up in the spot which is perhaps more sophisticated than South Park, a show I like because of its attitude to censorship but I can still see why it goes for shock rather than making many sharp political commentaries besides the usual hot takes. My attempt to use less words usually fails one way or another.

But yeah, lol are you drunk/stoned/on drugs/mental or some other ultimately disparaging thing because you didn't gather what I was saying. That's sincere too I'm sure. Cheers.

I think your contribution intended to be disingenuous. You will disagree, and I won't believe you. If you had intended to make some intellectual point of your own about it you would have added something to it rather than just parachutung in controversial material that is obviously controversial.

You posted the transcript after dropping the clip. Just seems a bit lazy is all. "oh a South Park hot take, this will go down a storm in the trans woman in sport thread on GRcade! I'll share that without expressing any of my own thoughts or opinions because doing that would be hard."

So again, why did you post the clip? Do you have an opinion on this subject?

What do you think about the replies people have taken the time to make about your share.

I don't expect the above. At all.