This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Statistics/competition question
- Can a Premier League team win all these in one season or is it impossible?
- Girls boxing, your views
- Everton hit with a 10 point deduction
- Interested In Playing Sport at University?
- Ranking of DMU at bucs
- Too much girth, not enough length
- Caption competition
- Joining Sports at Uni as a trans women
- Does a crush last?
- Why does 5'4 have to a deal breaker to women?
- TSR Tennis Society IV
- I have never won anything.
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- Online Dating Apps
- Cambridge personal statements/ interview
- I truly believe being a short man is one of the worst traits to have
- Are women fully protected by the Law?
- Is it really possible for two persons of opposite sex to be best friends only?
- The Official Love Island Thread Winter 2023
Man wins in women's competition
Scroll to see replies
Original post by yudothis
One last time Dima:
Woman: "an adult human female."
Female: "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
Humans born biologically male, are not women, by definition.
There is no false equivalence, both cases are people believing they are something, which they are not.
Woman: "an adult human female."
Female: "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
Humans born biologically male, are not women, by definition.
There is no false equivalence, both cases are people believing they are something, which they are not.
One last time:
Learn the difference between sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and read up on gender dysphoria, species dysphoria, otherkin culture, the psychological and physiological distinctions in terms of causes and treatments.
Your appeal to simplistic, incorrect dictionary definitions (as opposed to the relevant socio-biological literature) is about as relevant as homophobes’ appeal to selective definitions to prove they can’t be homophobic as they’re not afraid of homosexuals. It’s begging the question. Seriously, go read a book.
thats ****ed up
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
One last time:
Learn the difference between sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and read up on gender dysphoria, species dysphoria, otherkin culture, the psychological and physiological distinctions in terms of causes and treatments.
Your appeal to simplistic, incorrect dictionary definitions (as opposed to the relevant socio-biological literature) is about as relevant as homophobes’ appeal to selective definitions to prove they can’t be homophobic as they’re not afraid of homosexuals. It’s begging the question. Seriously, go read a book.
Learn the difference between sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and read up on gender dysphoria, species dysphoria, otherkin culture, the psychological and physiological distinctions in terms of causes and treatments.
Your appeal to simplistic, incorrect dictionary definitions (as opposed to the relevant socio-biological literature) is about as relevant as homophobes’ appeal to selective definitions to prove they can’t be homophobic as they’re not afraid of homosexuals. It’s begging the question. Seriously, go read a book.
If anything, you are the one who has no idea what the difference between sex and gender is. A trans woman can be feminine (gender), but not female (sex).
You are so deluded, I don't know why I even tried. For one, the cases of gender dysphoria are so rare and so different to the current debate, and the current debate is harming those suffering from it, more than anything.
(edited 6 years ago)
I feel that something is definitely wrong with the world, because I am about to agree with @yudothis
It seems very simple to me. If trans people competing in their new gender is fair then we should soon see transmen competing in male sports. If it's just a matter of hormone levels and you pretty much turn into a man then there should be no reason why transmale athletes don't start doing well.
It seems very simple to me. If trans people competing in their new gender is fair then we should soon see transmen competing in male sports. If it's just a matter of hormone levels and you pretty much turn into a man then there should be no reason why transmale athletes don't start doing well.
I support transgender people, as in if you're actually acting like the gender you claim to be, take the hormones, dress the part and look the part, I will call you by your "preferred pronouns"- she/her or he/him. This is taking it too far. Males are naturally stronger and have more testosterone in their body. This makes it easier for them to build muscle than females. Transgender people participating in competitive sports on the side of their desired gender makes it unfair to everyone else involved.
Original post by Trinculo
I feel that something is definitely wrong with the world, because I am about to agree with @yudothis
It seems very simple to me. If trans people competing in their new gender is fair then we should soon see transmen competing in male sports. If it's just a matter of hormone levels and you pretty much turn into a man then there should be no reason why transmale athletes don't start doing well.
It seems very simple to me. If trans people competing in their new gender is fair then we should soon see transmen competing in male sports. If it's just a matter of hormone levels and you pretty much turn into a man then there should be no reason why transmale athletes don't start doing well.
:haha:
Spot on logic. If trans woman have no advantage, trans men should have no disadvantage.
Original post by Trinculo
I feel that something is definitely wrong with the world, because I am about to agree with @yudothis
It seems very simple to me. If trans people competing in their new gender is fair then we should soon see transmen competing in male sports. If it's just a matter of hormone levels and you pretty much turn into a man then there should be no reason why transmale athletes don't start doing well.
It seems very simple to me. If trans people competing in their new gender is fair then we should soon see transmen competing in male sports. If it's just a matter of hormone levels and you pretty much turn into a man then there should be no reason why transmale athletes don't start doing well.
Except transmen cannot compete with normal men. Otherwise I’m all for it.
Original post by yudothis
If anything, you are the one who has no idea what the difference between sex and gender is. A trans woman can be feminine (gender), but not female (sex).
You are so deluded, I don't know why I even tried. For one, the cases of gender dysphoria are so rare and so different to the current debate, and the current debate is harming those suffering from it, more than anything.
You are so deluded, I don't know why I even tried. For one, the cases of gender dysphoria are so rare and so different to the current debate, and the current debate is harming those suffering from it, more than anything.
Did anyone claim trans-women can be exactly the same as cis-women? I'm pretty sure trans people understand the difference. They don't need a genius like you to help them differentiate. Again, learn the difference between gender identity and gender expression. I could identify as X but, based on stereotypes of gender Y, appear to you as being gender Y. To be transgender, you do not need to change your sex. In some areas, the law reflects this; in others a sex change is required. The UK DOES NOT requires sex change. Transgender merely means 'have changed gender', not necessarily sex.
Some transgender people (but not all) feel as though they are in the wrong body; these people used to commonly use the term 'transsexual' to identify themselves. They may undergo hormonal therapy and/or surgical treatments in addition to taking on the dress, mannerisms, behaviours, roles, etc in order to alleviate their symptoms.
One could be also transsexual but NOT transgender. Suppose I was born male and identify as a man (masculinely). However, I am unhappy with my genitalia and decide to undergo surgery. I undergo surgery, but I still identify as a man (masculine). Besides my genitalia, nothing has changed: I wear the same clothing, act the same way, etc.
Legally, you have to have lived in your acquired gender for a certain amount of time, undergone therapy meetings with a mental health professional and have applied for legal recognition. There's absolutely no sensible comparison here with the otherkin community, and that's without having to go into the VERY different psychological and neurobiological causes; we know there's a correlation between gender identity and brain structure (with transman showing male-like characteristics in neuroanatomy and vice versa); no unicorn-like (whatever the hell that means) characteristics have been observed in a human brain. Unlike transgenderism, the latter is a purely socio-psychological condition with very different treatments/solutions. Any attempt to compare the two reveals profound ignorance w.r.t. to the scientific literature.
I'd suggest you actually do some reading now before resorting to petulant name-calling and whining about transwomen occasionally beating cis-women in a sports competition.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by yudothis
:haha:
Spot on logic. If trans woman have no advantage, trans men should have no disadvantage.
Spot on logic. If trans woman have no advantage, trans men should have no disadvantage.
Another ignorant response. I've already cited studies showing that the reduction of muscle-mass and strength due to feminising hormonal therapy is far more prominent than the athletic advantages gained via testosterone therapy; it's not exactly doping.
Original post by SirMilkSheikh
Except transmen cannot compete with normal men. Otherwise I’m all for it.
Yes, they can.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Did anyone claim trans-women can be exactly the same as cis-women?
Yes, you, over and over.
"Transwomen are real women". That's all you say.
Answer me one thing, why are trans women so scared of admitting to themselves what they are - trans women. There is nothing wrong with it, but to them apparently it is, because they so desperately want to tell women that they are women, too. These people go to a group and say, we are one of you now. Erm, no. Yes we are. We don't think so. Bahhhhhhh you discriminate against me. You evil!
Jenni Murray quoted a trans woman who gets this:
Murray quoted Jenny Roberts, 72, who transitioned more than 20 years ago, on whether trans women should be considered “real”.
“I’m not a real woman,” is the first thing she said to me in a recent conversation.
“I understand that a lot of trans women want to believe they are women, but we’re not.”
“I’m not a real woman,” is the first thing she said to me in a recent conversation.
“I understand that a lot of trans women want to believe they are women, but we’re not.”
You are so stuck in the binary world, there's only "men" and "women" and you absolutely have to fit people into either one. Why? Trans women even admit, that their struggles/experiences are different to those of "cis" women. So own them. Fight for acceptance and respect. Don't appropriate women.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
False equivalency and a loaded question. Talk about falling into logical fallacies. I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer. Go read a book.
You aren't going to "dignify" that with an answer.
I asked you a simple question, in what way was it logically fallacious?
Are you aware that there is no complex question fallacy if the answer to that question is an accepted fact?
We'll try again. Why does believing you are a woman make you a woman even if you were born with a penis and testes, but no ovaries or vagina?
Original post by generallee
We'll try again. Why does believing you are a woman make you a woman even if you were born with a penis and testes, but no ovaries or vagina?
Don't bother, he is changing the definition of what "man" and "woman" mean.
He is on board with changing language, and thus how we think, to appease the emotional blackmail of a tiny minority of the population.
Original post by yudothis
Don't bother, he is changing the definition of what "man" and "woman" mean.
He is on board with changing language, and thus how we think, to appease the emotional blackmail of a tiny minority of the population.
He is on board with changing language, and thus how we think, to appease the emotional blackmail of a tiny minority of the population.
Yes.
I guess I am asking to receive the contents of some "gender studies" textbook, and why would I do that?
I would rather cut my own throat than ever read all that nonsense, so it is pretty dumb to engage in debate with an acolyte of the theory, only to get it all splurged out at me.
Original post by generallee
How about answering my question, then? Which I will repeat.
Does a person thinking they are a unicorn turn them into a unicorn?
Does a person thinking they are a unicorn turn them into a unicorn?
Depends on what you define as a unicorn. A 4 legged animal with a horn? Sure they exist, they are ugly and called rhinos. My point is that no matter how how much one can argue the IOC and other govening bodies of different sports all have their way of defining who is male or not. As pointed out previously it' not done on biological sex. Right or wrong, it's the way they scientifically do it.
Original post by Guru Jason
Depends on what you define as a unicorn. A 4 legged animal with a horn? Sure they exist, they are ugly and called rhinos. My point is that no matter how how much one can argue the IOC and other govening bodies of different sports all have their way of defining who is male or not. As pointed out previously it' not done on biological sex. Right or wrong, it's the way they scientifically do it.
It is wrong and about subjective judgement and social values not science.
They should revisit the chromosone test. There may have been technical challenges back in the day, but the decision not to do so now is driven by politics, not science.
Original post by yudothis
Yes, you, over and over.
"Transwomen are real women". That's all you say.
"Transwomen are real women". That's all you say.
There's no such thing as a "real woman"; woman as a label denotes gender (femininity), not biological sex. Like most identities, it too is just a social construct, but it doesn't mean it's not there. I've already cited scientific literature on the relationship between gender identity (i.e. your innate sense of identity, which may/may not reflect the stereotypical gender norms) and brain structure. It's well-established that transwomen have neuroanatomy that has more female-like characteristics than, say a cis-male brain. Whether you're a transwoman or a ciswoman, your innate sense of feminine (woman) identity is still constant, regardless of your differences.
Answer me one thing, why are trans women so scared of admitting to themselves what they are - trans women. There is nothing wrong with it, but to them apparently it is, because they so desperately want to tell women that they are women, too.
They're not scared of admitting they are transwomen, and they are women, for all intents and purposes. They're just not cis-women. Again, why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Stop constraining the woman label to mean a PC way of saying biological female with specific chromosomes and sex characteristics when it has nothing to do with biological sex as understood in literature today. If you're going to constrain it to a specific set of physical characteristics, why stop there? Why not exclude infertile women from your made-up category of "real women"? What about those cis-women who've never menstruated in their lives? They're not real women either, right? What about those women who've lived their lives as women, with all the sexual characteristics of a cis-female, but then later discover that they don't actually have XX chromosomes? Are they not real women?
You are so stuck in the binary world, there's only "men" and "women" and you absolutely have to fit people into either one. Why? Trans women even admit, that their struggles/experiences are different to those of "cis" women. So own them. Fight for acceptance and respect. Don't appropriate women.
I'm not fitting anyone in any category; on the contrary, I recognise that different experiences and physiologies have very little to do with internal, gender identity. You're the one who's stuck on an obsolete notion of "real men/women" that is a) scientifically misinformed, b) contrary to current legislation (believe it or not, lawyers are not idiots) and c) harmful to women? It's pretty shameful and intellectually dishonest to ignore scientific and legal consensus and team up with Mr "Unicorn" generelee to present worthless, fallacious comparisons in a truly bigoted fashion to undermine the identity and dignity of one of the most oppressed and misunderstood communities. Oh well.
https://medium.com/@juliaserano/debunking-trans-women-are-not-women-arguments-85fd5ab0e19c
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
There's no such thing as a "real woman"; woman as a label denotes gender (femininity), not biological sex. Like most identities, it too is just a social construct, but it doesn't mean it's not there. I've already cited scientific literature on the relationship between gender identity (i.e. your innate sense of identity, which may/may not reflect the stereotypical gender norms) and brain structure. It's well-established that transwomen have neuroanatomy that has more female-like characteristics than, say a cis-male brain. Whether you're a transwoman or a ciswoman, your innate sense of feminine (woman) identity is still constant, regardless of your differences.
They're not scared of admitting they are transwomen, and they are women, for all intents and purposes. They're just not cis-women. Again, why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Stop constraining the woman label to mean a PC way of saying biological female with specific chromosomes and sex characteristics when it has nothing to do with biological sex as understood in literature today. If you're going to constrain it to a specific set of physical characteristics, why stop there? Why not exclude women from your made-up category of "real women"? What about those cis-women who've never menstruated in their lives? They're not real women either, right? What about those women who've lived their lives as women, with all the sexual characteristics of a cis-female, but then later discover that they don't actually have XX chromosomes? Are they not real women?
I'm not fitting anyone in any category; on the contrary, I recognise that different experiences and physiologies have very little to do with internal, gender identity. You're the one who's stuck on an obsolete notion of "real men/women" that is a) scientifically misinformed, b) contrary to current legislation (believe it or not, lawyers are not idiots) and c) harmful to women? It's pretty shameful and intellectually dishonest to ignore scientific and legal consensus and team up with Mr "Unicorn" generelee to present worthless, fallacious comparisons in a truly bigoted fashion to undermine the identity and dignity of one of the most oppressed and misunderstood communities. Oh well.
https://medium.com/@juliaserano/debunking-trans-women-are-not-women-arguments-85fd5ab0e19c
They're not scared of admitting they are transwomen, and they are women, for all intents and purposes. They're just not cis-women. Again, why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Stop constraining the woman label to mean a PC way of saying biological female with specific chromosomes and sex characteristics when it has nothing to do with biological sex as understood in literature today. If you're going to constrain it to a specific set of physical characteristics, why stop there? Why not exclude women from your made-up category of "real women"? What about those cis-women who've never menstruated in their lives? They're not real women either, right? What about those women who've lived their lives as women, with all the sexual characteristics of a cis-female, but then later discover that they don't actually have XX chromosomes? Are they not real women?
I'm not fitting anyone in any category; on the contrary, I recognise that different experiences and physiologies have very little to do with internal, gender identity. You're the one who's stuck on an obsolete notion of "real men/women" that is a) scientifically misinformed, b) contrary to current legislation (believe it or not, lawyers are not idiots) and c) harmful to women? It's pretty shameful and intellectually dishonest to ignore scientific and legal consensus and team up with Mr "Unicorn" generelee to present worthless, fallacious comparisons in a truly bigoted fashion to undermine the identity and dignity of one of the most oppressed and misunderstood communities. Oh well.
https://medium.com/@juliaserano/debunking-trans-women-are-not-women-arguments-85fd5ab0e19c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E6Ab0K9AaY
Ignores post and throws a link to a youtube video. Here's a link for you:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/11/trans-exclusive-feminism-looks-like/
Typical fundamentalist. I've wasted enough time here.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
It's pretty shameful and intellectually dishonest to ignore scientific and legal consensus and team up with Mr "Unicorn" generelee to present worthless, fallacious comparisons in a truly bigoted fashion to undermine the identity and dignity of one of the most oppressed and misunderstood communities.
It's pretty shameful and intellectually dishonest to ignore scientific and legal consensus and team up with Mr "Unicorn" generelee to present worthless, fallacious comparisons in a truly bigoted fashion to undermine the identity and dignity of one of the most oppressed and misunderstood communities.
Enough already with the charges of "transphobia." With playing the bigot card, yawn; it is immensely tedious and tiresome.
If your side have a case to make, make it. Constructively. We don't have to agree, you know. Intellectual dissent from the PC orthodoxy is allowed.
The fact that when you don't have answers to simple questions you resort to ad hominem abuse says all you need to know about the weakness of your case.
Related discussions
- Statistics/competition question
- Can a Premier League team win all these in one season or is it impossible?
- Girls boxing, your views
- Everton hit with a 10 point deduction
- Interested In Playing Sport at University?
- Ranking of DMU at bucs
- Too much girth, not enough length
- Caption competition
- Joining Sports at Uni as a trans women
- Does a crush last?
- Why does 5'4 have to a deal breaker to women?
- TSR Tennis Society IV
- I have never won anything.
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- Online Dating Apps
- Cambridge personal statements/ interview
- I truly believe being a short man is one of the worst traits to have
- Are women fully protected by the Law?
- Is it really possible for two persons of opposite sex to be best friends only?
- The Official Love Island Thread Winter 2023
Latest
Last reply 14 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 22 minutes ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 24 minutes ago
Kingston or Westminster university for architecture?Last reply 28 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1020
Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?