The Student Room Group

Labour discussing plans to include trans women on women only shortlists

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Conceited
No history of oppression there with matters that are relevant today. That's why.


I was joking, dude.

Anyway, the past is in the past. That is true, yes. But if we want equality, shouldn't we anyway?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by yudothis
Um, just follow the debate...


Lmao which debate? The thread? Trans women being accepted onto a women’s short list isn’t looking for superiority to cis people so I don’t get the relevance?
Original post by cat_mac
Lmao which debate? The thread? Trans women being accepted onto a women’s short list isn’t looking for superiority to cis people so I don’t get the relevance?


No, I don't think it is. However, it is a women's short list. Not a man's short list.
Original post by Unkilled
No, I don't think it is. However, it is a women's short list. Not a man's short list.


I just have no clue what ‘debate’ or ‘agenda’ I should be watching as this person is just making elusive statements and expecting people to understand :facepalm:
Original post by Unkilled
Well basically, when a non-LGBT person says the word "and", they are called (insert identity politics movement we all hate here)phobic and publicly executed.


You are exactly right.
Original post by yudothis
You are exactly right.


Happens quite often.
Original post by yudothis
Oh you are so naive. You have absolutely no idea, do you? Wake up, you will very well get fired, or frozen out, no more promotions, ostracized. You clearly show a complete lack of understanding how office politics works, how things are like in academia and public office (which actually employ a lot of people, particularly people interested in this topic).



I've had a job where poeple got away with pinning female workers to the ground.

You are so lame it's beyond belief.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by cat_mac
Lmao which debate? The thread? Trans women being accepted onto a women’s short list isn’t looking for superiority to cis people so I don’t get the relevance?


Men being on women's short list by 'self-identifying' as women is superiority. Men wanting access to women's spaces, men wanting to compete as women. All those things and if women say, no we want some things away from people who self-identify into our group, they are labelled as exclusive. You have a women's officer who spends most of the time talking about themselves and the rest of the time about trans issues.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I've had a job where poeple got away with pinning female workers to the ground.

You are so lame it's beyond belief.


And you got absolutely no argument whatsoever, and have shown yourself to be completely incapable of seeing reality.
Original post by cat_mac
I just have no clue what ‘debate’ or ‘agenda’ I should be watching as this person is just making elusive statements and expecting people to understand :facepalm:


You are debating the trans issue. There is a rather large debate going on around that right now. Why are you debating it, if you have no idea about it? And no, I don't mean on TSR, I mean in general, in the public, on Twitter. Do you even know what happened to Rose McGowan recently? Just the most recent example.
Original post by yudothis
Men being on women's short list by 'self-identifying' as women is superiority. Men wanting access to women's spaces, men wanting to compete as women. All those things and if women say, no we want some things away from people who self-identify into our group, they are labelled as exclusive. You have a women's officer who spends most of the time talking about themselves and the rest of the time about trans issues.


If anything that’s wanting to be seen as equal to women, not superior to them. I understand your point even if I don’t agree with it, but I don’t see how it’s superiority to be considered for women’s short list?
Original post by yudothis
You are debating the trans issue. There is a rather large debate going on around that right now. Why are you debating it, if you have no idea about it? And no, I don't mean on TSR, I mean in general, in the public, on Twitter. Do you even know what happened to Rose McGowan recently? Just the most recent example.


I wasn’t debating I was asking for information on a viewpoint that I hadn’t heard before. In my original I said
Original post by cat_mac
What exactly are trans people asking for that would make them superior?

(I’m not looking to argue, I genuinely haven’t heard this before and am curious as personally I haven’t seen any demands that would make trans people superior)


I don’t really consider that debating the trans issue. If you don’t have anything to back up your claim then that’s fine, I was just asking a question.
Original post by cat_mac
If anything that’s wanting to be seen as equal to women, not superior to them. I understand your point even if I don’t agree with it, but I don’t see how it’s superiority to be considered for women’s short list?


Because they are not women, and they are shouting over those women that think that matters. And that's the first step, first it's women's shortlists next it's toilets, next it's women's shelters. It's as misogynistic a movement as it is homophobic.
Original post by cat_mac
I wasn’t debating I was asking for information on a viewpoint that I hadn’t heard before. In my original I said

I don’t really consider that debating the trans issue. If you don’t have anything to back up your claim then that’s fine, I was just asking a question.


What is it with TSR's obsession with "back up your argument". Everyone always wants it, no one ever does it themselves. As I said, google a little and you will find all the evidence yourself. I most certainly won't waste my time trying to find the articles I read, or copying and pasting Twitter threads just because you think "back up your claim" is a valid excuse for dismissing someone in a debate you have no idea about, and obviously no real interest in, else you would have researched it yourself and wouldn't try to get me to do it for you.
Original post by the beer
Why shouldn't we normalise mental illness?


Because it's dangerous? Someone who has body dysmorphia
isn't told "yes you are fat keep eating less" which would increase the severity of it.
So why should someone with gender dysmorphia be told "yes you are a
girl eventhough you're biologiaclly a man"?

Not only this but the rate of suicide in the transgender community is only comparable to that of Jews inside Nazi Germnay, if that doesn't make you think there's an issue I don't know what will. And that rate doesn't drop after they've had surgery.
Why not just let teh people vote for who thinks represents them the best? That would be true democracy would it not? Gender specific short lists are discriminatory no matter what.
Original post by yudothis
If you lined up men and women in order of ability for each sport, sure the best women will beat plenty of men. But guess what, the best men will beat all women. So whether or not you manged to beat plenty of dudes is irrelevant.



agreed, and if you look at sports such as football and cricket, that have female versions, it's clear that the women have a far lower skill level regardless of size

best test would be to put a womens side against a boys side
Original post by EqualitySloth
@Trinculo they aren’t men though, thats the whole point. If you are trans and you identify as a women then by definition of being a trans-woman, you ARE a woman


even if they still have a penis?
Original post by So-Sarah
agreed, and if you look at sports such as football and cricket, that have female versions, it's clear that the women have a far lower skill level regardless of size

best test would be to put a womens side against a boys side


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4389760/USA-women-s-team-suffer-5-2-loss-FC-Dallas-U-15-boys.html

The women's wold cup team lost to an U15 boys team.

As I said, this is pure lunacy to suggest one should not split sports by sex.

Quick Reply

Latest