The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Man wins in women's competition

Scroll to see replies

Original post by generallee
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. :biggrin:

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.


I don’t have time for intellectually dishonest bigots who lack basic knowledge on the topic. It’s like arguing with creationists who start with “if we evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still around?”

By all means consider my refusal to entertain deliberate transphobia as your victory. I’m sure you’ll be chuffed. Meanwhile the real world has moved on :smile:
Reply 121
Avatar for yudothis
yudothis
OP
20
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
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.


Because that's video is the best reply to your biases, uninformed posts.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bnrOLhx6L3c

Everyday feminism :rolleyes:
Reply 122
Avatar for yudothis
yudothis
OP
20
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
I don’t have time for intellectually dishonest bigots who lack basic knowledge on the topic. It’s like arguing with creationists who start with “if we evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still around?”

By all means consider my refusal to entertain deliberate transphobia as your victory. I’m sure you’ll be chuffed. Meanwhile the real world has moved on :smile:


No it hasn't. There is a very vocal, aggressive, bullying trans agenda going on, yes, that lobby politics and try to shut down debate by calling anyone disagreeing as "transphobic", and they managed to bully the government to allow their groups and organizations to be the only ones to be consulted on issues, but since 2010 there has been no law change. Yet they tell schools misleading information and phrase their "guidelines" as if they were law. They're not. And the "real" world hasn't moved on. That's why there is so much opposition.

You're calling others misinformed, but yet wrongly say there is a law for say transgwnders having a right to use toilets and be showers of the opposite sex. There's not. There are just guidelines that TRAs push around.
This is so absurd. Forget the irrelevancies of a TSR debate - I cannot fathom how national sporting bodies have got mixed up with this.

In most of these cases we're looking at elite sports (well, of course we are, otherwise no one would care). And I strongly suspect that the answer to why its happening is not because of any push for all-gender equality, but because of blatant cheating. We're not talking about athletes who have transitioned young, or athletes who have always identified female but may have intersex traits - in this NZ case, we're talking about an elite level male athlete who has then transitioned to being female, and then carried on. There's nothing about this which is remotely fair. Regardless of endocrinology, such an athlete will always male anatomy - will always have a man's skeleton and the accompanying muscles. BIgger heart and lungs - it's not even close to being fair.
Original post by yudothis
Because that's video is the best reply to your biases, uninformed posts.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bnrOLhx6L3c

Everyday feminism :rolleyes:


Original post by yudothis
No it hasn't. There is a very vocal, aggressive, bullying trans agenda going on, yes, that lobby politics and try to shut down debate by calling anyone disagreeing as "transphobic", and they managed to bully the government to allow their groups and organizations to be the only ones to be consulted on issues, but since 2010 there has been no law change. Yet they tell schools misleading information and phrase their "guidelines" as if they were law. They're not. And the "real" world hasn't moved on. That's why there is so much opposition.

You're calling others misinformed, but yet wrongly say there is a law for say transgwnders having a right to use toilets and be showers of the opposite sex. There's not. There are just guidelines that TRAs push around.


More YouTube videos? Once again, I have no time to address your radical bs. You’re about as relevant to the real world as the alt-right. Mainstream feminism is thoroughly intersectional today.

You’re woefully misinformed (and seemingly proud of it) if you think they’re mere guidelines; gender reassignment has been one of the protected characteristics, therefore people who are proposing to, are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment are in fact protected by the law to use the toilets corresponding to their gender identities.
(edited 6 years ago)
Nah trans people shouldn't be able to compete, if gender is basically a society thing and not actually what you are then you cant compete in the opposite sex sport competitions.
Reply 126
Avatar for yudothis
yudothis
OP
20
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
More YouTube videos? Once again, I have no time to address your radical bs. You’re about as relevant to the real world as the alt-right. Mainstream feminism is thoroughly intersectional today.

You’re woefully misinformed (and seemingly proud of it) if you think they’re mere guidelines; gender reassignment is one of the protected characteristics, therefore people who are proposing to, are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment are in fact protected by the law to use the toilets corresponding to their gender identities.


All you have left is "muh radical".

That applies to adults and would exclude people like Lily Madigan and yet she isn't hailed as beacon of womanhood. And yet trans groups tell schools boys must change in girls changing rooms if they say they are a girl.

But hey, I'm the one living in cuckoo land :wink: bye bye
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
woman as a label denotes gender (femininity), not biological sex.


Not to most people, who are outside the bubble of identity politics. Woman means a person with a vagina who could, health-permitting, give birth if she were so inclined.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by yudothis
All you have left is "muh radical".

That applies to adults and would exclude people like Lily Madigan and yet she isn't hailed as beacon of womanhood. And yet trans groups tell schools boys must change in girls changing rooms if they say they are a girl.

But hey, I'm the one living in cuckoo land :wink: bye bye


Nope. Please read up on the Equality Act.

Bye bye :smile:
Original post by Good bloke
Not to most people, who are outside the bubble of identity politics. Woman means a person with a vagina who could, health-permitting, give birth if she were so inclined.


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity
[QUOTE= Trans women on average, are taller, smaller-breasted, and narrower-hipped than cis-women, and these things do provide advantages in some sports. But plenty of cis women naturally have these body shapes as well anyway, and we don't ban them.

Well coz they were born females and not blokes
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Dima-Blackburn


I gather from that misplaced link that you believe that most people think a woman is anyone that claims to be a woman. I disagree. Perhaps you have evidence to support your view, butI doubt it. You aseem to be inside the identity politics bubble so are probably somewhat insulated from real people and their views.
Original post by Good bloke
I gather from that misplaced link that you believe that most people think a woman is anyone that claims to be a woman. I disagree. Perhaps you have evidence to support your view, butI doubt it. You aseem to be inside the identity politics bubble so are probably somewhat insulated from real people and their views.


It's not misplaced at all. Perhaps you've failed to grasp that I don't particulary place any weight on how the majority of an ill-informed populace defines certain concepts. It's a bit ironic to pull out the identity politics (meaningless buzz-phrase) card when the masses are themselves highly susceptible to identity politics.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
an ill-informed populace defines certain concepts.


:toofunny:

The 'ill-informed populace' is concerned, generally, with people, and with everyday things it can relate to. That a group of academics or politicians chooses to appropriate an everyday word and use it for a narrow, special purpose is neither here nor there.

By your argument, the ill-informed populace must think 'bit' means only or mainly 'binary digit' and could not possibly think it refers to a small quantity; or that 'briefs' must refer to barristers' cases and not to underwear; or that 'head' is a toilet and not the part of the body above the neck.

If you either don't realise or don't care that you are using language in a manner alien to the 'ill-informed populace' then you are very firmly in the bubble, and also very arrogant about it.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
I don’t have time for intellectually dishonest bigots who lack basic knowledge on the topic. It’s like arguing with creationists who start with “if we evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still around?”


That is a false equivalence. And yet another ad hominem. And an argument which appeals to authority (your alleged superior wisdom on the subject). Three logical fallacies in four lines. Pretty good going even for you.

You haven't exactly covered yourself in glory during our little interlocution, have you?

My contention still stands. In no way have you disproved it. Believing yourself to be something does not make you that something.
Original post by Good bloke
:toofunny:

The 'ill-informed populace' is concerned, generally, with people, and with everyday things it can relate to. That a group of academics or politicians chooses to appropriate an everyday word and use it for a narrow, special purpose is neither here nor there.


You mean everyday concepts like marriage being defined as a union between man and woman by the overwhelming majority of the humans today? Oh no, those homosexuals have appropriated the word marriage for their own agendas now. PC liberalism gone mad! Sorry, but I’ll have to go with the legal and academic definitions over popular opinion; ironically, the latter is far more narrow and restrictive in terms of definitions in this context.

By your argument, the ill-informed populace must think 'bit' means only or mainly 'binary digit' and could not possibly think it refers to a small quantity; or that 'briefs' must refer to barristers' cases and not to underwear; or that 'head' is a toilet and not the part of the body above the neck.


I don’t understand what you’re babbling on about.

If you either don't realise or don't care that you are using language in a manner alien to the 'ill-informed populace' then you are very firmly in the bubble, and also very arrogant about it.


Language evolves; the public perception of certain social constructs is also not static. It’s no more arrogant to not place any authoritative weight on the ill-informed majority w.r.t. to the definition of woman being restricted to a specific set of sexual characteristics, than not placing authoritative weight on other ill-informed (but nevertheless popular) definitions of woman involving the onset of puberty.

What’s arrogant is to refuse to recognise legal and medical consensus on the issue in order to perpetuate harmful preconceived notions.
Original post by generallee
That is a false equivalence. And yet another ad hominem. And an argument which appeals to authority (your alleged superior wisdom on the subject). Three logical fallacies in four lines. Pretty good going even for you.

You haven't exactly covered yourself in glory during our little interlocution, have you?

My contention still stands. In no way have you disproved it. Believing yourself to be something does not make you that something.


Logical fallacies are features of bad arguments; I’ve made no arguments in my exchanges with you in the first place.

Again, I refuse to entertain deliberate ignorance on the subject.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn

I don’t understand what you’re babbling on about.


Exactly!
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
I’m sorry, there aren’t any women here for you to grope :frown:


Is that what you want on your gravestone? And do you think that women's role is to provide a groping target?
Original post by Good bloke
Is that what you want on your gravestone? And do you think that women's role is to provide a groping target?


You seem particularly keen on replying on behalf of a proud, self-confessed groper. Perhaps you’re sympathetic to his views regarding sexual harassment?
(edited 6 years ago)

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you