Trans Women in Sport

ianfianf wrote:Is swearing and name calling fine on this board now?

It's possible for someone to disagree with you without resorting to such.

ianfianf wrote:That's great Moggy.

I was more pointing about referring to someone as a dick as seen on the previous page.

ianfianf wrote:Has Mommy identified either way?

Perhaps be more respectful.

ianfianf wrote:That's great Moggy.

I was more pointing about referring to someone as a dick as seen on the previous page.

kerr9000 wrote:no I said if you sit patting yourself on the back cause your so sure your right your a turd, I never said I was right, I happily listen to all points of view and realise that everyone grows and learns and changes, things I once felt one way about I now feel another way about.

Whatever anyone thinks I just want this to be a growing forum where people can feel free to chat and where its not a clicky courtroom, this is why I helped with podcasts and articles and put links in my youtube etc but im done im not going to further reply to this or any none gaming thread I wipe my hands of it everyone can keep on how they are and im just going to use the bits of this place im happy with like retro threads without thinking about the bigger picture ortrying to contriubute anything.

Skarjo wrote:Taf, I take it back.

Sorry, I should have known better.

Skarjo wrote:

Mommy wrote:I want to know more about this. I have come at it from a different angle and probably not explained that clearly to you. I'll read through this thread, and the other related linked information too.
Then maybe I'll be more welcomed into the discussion rather than being seen as a transgender hater.

Ah.

Maybe you are just a dick.

Moggy wrote:

ianfianf wrote:That's great Moggy.

I was more pointing about referring to someone as a dick as seen on the previous page.

Skarjo said “maybe you are just a dick”

That’s not name calling, that is Skarjo agreeing with Mommy that biologically Mommy was born with a penis and is therefore just a dick when it comes to determining his gender.

Mommy wrote:

Moggy wrote:

ianfianf wrote:That's great Moggy.

I was more pointing about referring to someone as a dick as seen on the previous page.

Skarjo said “maybe you are just a dick”

That’s not name calling, that is Skarjo agreeing with Mommy that biologically Mommy was born with a penis and is therefore just a dick when it comes to determining his gender.

No, It is name calling. At least see it for what it is. Maybe it was the " " that triggered Skarjo? I was being genuine in my post.

Karl_ wrote: …yes - hormone replacement therapy does affect the genitals… even if that weren't true, it would still be confusing and rude to call a trans woman's penis "male".

Karl_ wrote: …In scientific usage where "male" and "female" refer to phenotypic sex you would be more careful and precise than that when discussing the penis of a post-HRT trans woman, and in everyday usage where sex and gender are mixed up in the word "male" it would certainly be inappropriate to decide that a particular part of a woman's body is really a man's body part.

Karl_ wrote: …overall it's net positive to normalise the idea of women with penises, because not every trans woman is able to (or wants to) have gender confirmation surgery.

Corazon de Leon wrote: …The point I was making is that the debate isn't really appropriate or necessary anywhere in the terms that you stated it… and therefore actually negates the need for further debate about whether they should then be allowed to participate in societal constructs such as sport.

I'm struggling to put it into English I'm afraid, but do you understand what I mean by this?

Tafdolphin wrote:...mixed race couples...

Moggy wrote: …Most 100m winners of the last few decades have been Black. Should White people have their own event as it is not fair that Black people get the “easy mode”?

Mommy wrote:

Moggy wrote:

ianfianf wrote:That's great Moggy.

I was more pointing about referring to someone as a dick as seen on the previous page.

Skarjo said “maybe you are just a dick”

That’s not name calling, that is Skarjo agreeing with Mommy that biologically Mommy was born with a penis and is therefore just a dick when it comes to determining his gender.

No, It is name calling. At least see it for what it is. Maybe it was the " " that triggered Skarjo? I was being genuine in my post.

Mommy wrote:What? Didn't we learn this when we were 5?

Skarjo wrote:I'm gonna jump in here because, on the issue, while I agree with their position, I strawberry floating despise the phrase 'It's not my job to educate you' as you can count on no hands the number of people who've ever had their view changed by being told to go away until they agree with you. I also hate it because it gooseberry fools on the very reason the saying originated. 'It's not my job to educate you' is meant to be a defence for trans people who do not want nor should not need to be pressured into defining, explaining and justifying their own existence to every dickhead who doesn't understand the issue. What it doesn't mean is that cis people can wade into discussions about the matter, call everyone who disagrees with them a bigot and then refuse to elaborate on the issue at large whilst dismissing all criticism. If you're going to call people idiots and bigots and call for them to banned from the conversation then you abso-fucking-lutely just made it your job to educate them.

I was on the fence about trans issues for a long time. As a science teacher, I was very much of the opinion that people should be free to live their lives how they wish, but that you also can't lie to a test tube and what's in your genes is the defining factor. It wasn't until it was explained to me that, not only was this not true (it was still mostly true, but as ever the devil was in the details), but it also didn't matter that it wasn't true because that's not how any of this works.

When defining what it means to be man or woman, most people who are critical of trans positions tend to come down in one of two camps;

1) Men have willies and women have front bottoms. (The 'Duh, we learned this in primary school' crowd)

Or

2) Men are XY and women are XX. (The 'Duh, we learned this in secondary school' crowd)

Now, side-stepping the obvious issue that it's not a great look to pin your position on a modern civil rights movement based on the simplified version you got at school a decade or longer ago, it goes without saying that;

A)Both those statements are wrong (or at least full of so many exceptions that it's pretty meaningless.)

and

B) It doesn't matter that they're wrong because that's not how a (theoretical) you define men and women either. I'm willing to bet that there's hundreds, if not thousands of people in your life and you had no problem fitting them into the 'man'/'woman box in your brain. Have you checked their genitals? Outside of a precious minority, probably not. Have you checked their genotypes? Hell, have you checked you own genotype? I bet not. So you cannot call your classification system absolute when you've probably never used it in real life, but are eager to shout about it's obviousness and perfection whenever someone rejects it.

So I changed my mind on trans issues and realised that the biological essentialist argument was bullshit because I couldn't argue it was essential to have an XY chromosome to be a man when there are extensive documented cases of men without an XY matchup in their genes, and I also had never checked my own so could hardly say it was essential to my self-identity as a man. And the 'Men have willies' argument was also bullshit because if a dude lost his dick riding a chainsaw like a Nimbus 3000, you'd be hard pressed to find someone arguing that they were genuinely no longer a man. If you can lose a dick and still be a man, why do you need to have a dick in the first place? And again, when people meet me, I instantly get treated as a man without any need to check what's in my pants. Save, of course, for your mum, who checks everyone's dicks.

Once I realised that there was no hard and fast biological standard for what makes a man a man, the rest just falls into place. And, importantly, this means that for people who have known in their heart of hearts that they are/aren't wo/men, we can now have a more grown up discussion about how to accommodate this in society.

Mommy wrote:...

Skarjo wrote:I'm sorry you feel victimised.

mic wrote:

Karl_ wrote: …yes - hormone replacement therapy does affect the genitals… even if that weren't true, it would still be confusing and rude to call a trans woman's penis "male".

I accept both the explanation (thanks) and the impropriety of the terminology.

Karl_ wrote: …In scientific usage where "male" and "female" refer to phenotypic sex you would be more careful and precise than that when discussing the penis of a post-HRT trans woman, and in everyday usage where sex and gender are mixed up in the word "male" it would certainly be inappropriate to decide that a particular part of a woman's body is really a man's body part.

Karl_ wrote: …overall it's net positive to normalise the idea of women with penises, because not every trans woman is able to (or wants to) have gender confirmation surgery.

In the abovementioned case against the beauticians, should they be expected to differentiate between pre/ post-HRT testicles… or should they just be expected to do their jobs regardless?

Corazon de Leon wrote: …The point I was making is that the debate isn't really appropriate or necessary anywhere in the terms that you stated it… and therefore actually negates the need for further debate about whether they should then be allowed to participate in societal constructs such as sport.

I'm struggling to put it into English I'm afraid, but do you understand what I mean by this?

Yes, I think I understand your point. Nevertheless, I maintain both that it is an important discussion to have, and that it should be had in as many places as possible. Although the situation of other minorities is improving (slowly) the discussion remains ongoing (domestically and internationally), so how can trans issues, which are relatively new, be expected to leapfrog into full inclusion without any social discussion?
A number of members have stated that this topic makes them uncomfortable and that seems to me a good thing – it SHOULD make us uncomfortable... at least until it is no longer as issue.

Tafdolphin wrote:...mixed race couples...

I think the term you're looking for is interracial couples, possibly resulting in miscegenation.

Moggy wrote: …Most 100m winners of the last few decades have been Black. Should White people have their own event as it is not fair that Black people get the “easy mode”?

First it was African Americans and then the Jamaicans showed up! There was a taste of this sort of thing when Serena Williams began to ‘dominate’ tennis, with media comments focusing on her size, strength and power (typically masculine qualities) as opposed to the ‘skill’ and ‘determination’ of her opponents, with some commentators going almost so far as to suggest that the competition was unfair.

What if, in line with technological advancement, Paralympians start demanding inclusion and winning everything with their prosthetics?!