Red Mosquito

Leatherhead wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:we should be letting athletes compete with one another according to comparable body type, not gender, and that is beginning to happen; sporting associations are beginning to let it happen, in spite of massive media pushback, and I'm glad of it

Interesting. A weight class kinda thing for all sports? Though I really don't care about sports and find it ridiculous how much a lot of people seem to really think it's important.

A lot of people raise their kids to be elite athletes. If a crazy parent will attack a ref for putting their work in jeopardy, why wouldn't they attack a trans kid?

isn't there a trans male boxer? why doesnt he get the news coverage lia thomas does?

warehouse wrote:isn't there a trans male boxer? why doesnt he get the news coverage lia thomas does?

Because transphobes are biased, and they don't think a trans male poses a risk to male boxers because he'd be too girly.

B wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:we should be letting athletes compete with one another according to comparable body type, not gender, and that is beginning to happen; sporting associations are beginning to let it happen, in spite of massive media pushback, and I'm glad of it

Interesting. A weight class kinda thing for all sports? Though I really don't care about sports and find it ridiculous how much a lot of people seem to really think it's important.

A lot of people raise their kids to be elite athletes. If a crazy parent will attack a ref for putting their work in jeopardy, why wouldn't they attack a trans kid?

Since there's only 5 of them, not a big risk.

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I think I speak for everyone when I say that we all, regardless of background, can't stand CIS white males (liberals).

I am one (I think?) and I can’t stand us. But no one ever answers Bammer’s original question. These days its Lia Thomas but it’s always that (probably rare) event where a trans person who is now female dominates a sporting event. I feel like not acknowledging this isn’t good. I don’t think people really care about which bathroom people use, and I’d bet most people will call you what you want. But we all know the male body is bigger and stronger. Why can’t people at the very least admit it’s a gray area?

well using bammer as your base model im not sure bigger and stronger than females applies here

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:we should be letting athletes compete with one another according to comparable body type, not gender, and that is beginning to happen; sporting associations are beginning to let it happen, in spite of massive media pushback, and I'm glad of it

Interesting. A weight class kinda thing for all sports? Though I really don't care about sports and find it ridiculous how much a lot of people seem to really think it's important.

A lot of people raise their kids to be elite athletes. If a crazy parent will attack a ref for putting their work in jeopardy, why wouldn't they attack a trans kid?

Since there's only 5 of them, not a big risk.

Oooh, good callback.

B wrote:

warehouse wrote:isn't there a trans male boxer? why doesnt he get the news coverage lia thomas does?

Because transphobes are biased, and they don't think a trans male poses a risk to male boxers because he'd be too girly.

exactly right

that's why we needed a word for systemic anti-trans hate and violence that hits trans women harder and more specifically (ooh boxing metaphor): transmisogyny

yes, there are definitely trans male boxers, but they don't recieve the dangerous hyper-visibility and publicity that trans women do because they aren't considered the same level of dangerous threat to *everything* in societal existence

Ms Harmless wrote:

B wrote:

warehouse wrote:isn't there a trans male boxer? why doesnt he get the news coverage lia thomas does?

Because transphobes are biased, and they don't think a trans male poses a risk to male boxers because he'd be too girly.

exactly right

I think the general consensus amoung "transphobes" is that men's sports should be open to all, but women's sports should be restricted in some manner. That certainly contains bias but not in the way you two described.

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

B wrote:

warehouse wrote:isn't there a trans male boxer? why doesnt he get the news coverage lia thomas does?

Because transphobes are biased, and they don't think a trans male poses a risk to male boxers because he'd be too girly.

exactly right

I think the general consensus amoung "transphobes" is that men's sports should be open to all, but women's sports should be restricted in some manner. That certainly contains bias but not in the way you two described.

I was being facetious. I know they've got some sweet eugenics to back them up.

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

B wrote:

warehouse wrote:isn't there a trans male boxer? why doesnt he get the news coverage lia thomas does?

Because transphobes are biased, and they don't think a trans male poses a risk to male boxers because he'd be too girly.

exactly right

I think the general consensus amoung "transphobes" is that men's sports should be open to all, but women's sports should be restricted in some manner. That certainly contains bias but not in the way you two described.

the gatekeeping of women's spaces (including sports) from trans women is called "feminism" by some (a very vocal minority); it's hate though, justified by vast swathes of scaremongering misinformation about a hypothetical bogeyman

this is number one triggering territory for me so I won't be arguing the point; there it is, take or leave

hate groups don't tend to admit they're hate groups, instead they drum up public support for a false narrative they've created to make their target look like a dangerous threat; we've seen it done to every marginalised group of people and now it's us

Ms Harmless wrote:we should be letting athletes compete with one another according to comparable body type, not gender, and that is beginning to happen; sporting associations are beginning to let it happen, in spite of massive media pushback, and I'm glad of it

This is a great idea and should be pursued further.

Spoiler: show

Is it wrong to have a little bit of schadenfreude at 2nd wave feminists expense? They so very dutifully tore down all male only spaces and are now frantically trying to form a coalition to preserve female only spaces, being faced with the very same language they used in the 60s and 70s. This is what they ordered, and now they have to eat it.

no, that's very right

the truth is that many feminists supported us even in their day; that's how we've survived and that's why we are accepted by the good ones

gender *and* biological sex may be two separate categories in various contexts, but they are both socially constructed; these 2nd wave feminists' insistence that female only spaces were always strictly "sex segregated" is actually nonsense and always has been, but it's all they have left as an argument

aspects of the body which society genders are called "secondary sex characteristics" precisely because in nearly area of life where women are accepted, THE *primary* sex characteristic has been self-determination and self-identification of one's gender; now these 2nd wave feminists are doing shit like calling for genital inspections in schools, it's fucking absurd

anti-trans feminists are as much part of my oppression as violent men are, just in different ways, for different reasons, in different contexts

trans women just want to pee in safety (and we are not safe in strictly men's toilets, any more than cis women would be)

I'm not a Lib Dem supporter but this is a good article on dispelling anti-trans fears

https://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/en/page/deb ... er-version

It's a bit utilitarian, but a counterargument against both the 2nd wave feminists and trans activists is that it's not worth restructuring society to marginally benefit such a small group of people (gender non-conforming women for 2nd wave feminists) when the system is working fine for the vast majority. It's also important to emphasize marginal benefit and that their claim to harm from being excluded in relatively limited ways was not large (theoretically losing out on a promotion when not invited with the boys for drinks after work, etc). Note that the end compromise was not women joining the boys for drinks after work, it was no after drink works for anyone (famous kill joy Ellen Pao a good example of why).

I know that argument didn't prevail then and won't now. The compromise for the current situation will probably just be getting rid of communal same sex places at a cost of a bit of real estate and stupid building codes.

Moving beyond this issue, it's kind of hard to have too much sympathy for 2nd wave feminists that were perfectly fine with de-industrialization (they didn't want those jobs anyways) and a permanent transition to 2 income households, both which increased misery for the vast majority just so a few girl bosses could live their best lives.

simple schoolboy wrote:it's not worth restructuring society to marginally benefit such a small group of people

I hear that all the time and it angers me; we've said it about every marginalised group throughout history and it's so fallacious -- we've called Black people a "minority" when in fact, globally, it's white people that are the minority

I don't accept being constantly pushed to the side just because I might be the only one in the room in a given context (whether that be because I'm in a wheelchair, a trans woman, or queer)

billionaires are a societal minority too, but they receive the opposite treatment

it isn't true that "most people" are fine so nothing needs to change, so I am a trans activist who pushes for change