Turn on thread page Beta

Labour discussing plans to include trans women on women only shortlists watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I think discussing the "number of genders/sexes" is a largely unproductive question. I think it's much more helpful to think of it as a continuum with two ends. The vast majority of people are close enough to one end or the other to be able to confidently say which side of the spectrum they are on, but there are a handful around the middle who don't know or are at some level unsure.
    Fully agree.

    But should that mean that everyone gets to self ID (i.e. lie to be sent to a woman's prison instead of staying in a men's one, live out a fetish, etc.)? Should it mean that those in the middle that present physically as male, but feel women should compete against women in sports?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And does that go away for the parts of the article that contradict your argument?

    For instance, the article affirms the possibility of "social and legal transition to the desired gender" and even "transition to the opposite sex". Yet presumably, you deny that these transitions are "real"?
    Legal is law. How a trans person is treated under law has nothing to do with reality.
    Social is how you are perceived to be in society. People like yourself are pushing for society to accept these people to be seen as real women.

    Transition to the opposite sex is impossible. You can’t transition your sex.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    x
    https://twitter.com/confirmedturf/st...84247289593856

    Read the thread and tell me this isn't only lunacy, it's highly nefarious and incredibly damaging to actual women. And yes, actual. Because a woman is a female human. And while gender is a social construct, sex is based in biology, reality, and you can operate that away or pump pills into your body to change it.

    Not that any of those in my link did that. Just "hey I am woman therefore I am woman therefore I am a woman therefore, where was I".

    Furthermore, this has serious repercussions for society as a whole. If all you need to do to get your way is to portray yourself as a vulnerable minority to achieve lunacy, this is dangerous precedent.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Going to group this together under one post for the sake of tidiness.

    (Original post by yudothis)
    But the distinction is absolutely vital. Gender is not protected. Sex is. By erasing sex and creating 'gender identity", they are able to erase sex protected rights.
    Gender identity is not a protected characteristic, true, but gender reassignment is.

    Women cannot talk about menstruation anymore because "not all women menstruate". It is offending to trans women to say "women" when talking about menstruation. Further up I linked to the Oxford (or cam, i dont remember now) women's officer. She calls them "our menstruating students". Her first heading is "trans rights". She isn't LGBT.

    If sex is no longer protected, then women's sports will become a sausage fest of failed male athletes who just want to win but can't in men's.

    And I could go on. Point is, sex matters.
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Fully agree.

    But should that mean that everyone gets to self ID (i.e. lie to be sent to a woman's prison instead of staying in a men's one, live out a fetish, etc.)? Should it mean that those in the middle that present physically as male, but feel women should compete against women in sports?
    Couple of issues here. Firstly, self-ID. Broadly speaking, I'm not in favour of absolute self-ID, I think you should be able to demonstrate some evidence of sincerity if it came to a legal matter (though at the same time, anyone asking you to produce such evidence should be required to have reasonable suspicion that you are lying, not just a personal opinion on how feminine/masculine you look).

    Secondly, sports. Ultimately, I think the eventual solution for sports (or at least athletics and individual events) will be some sort of boxing/weightlifting-style class system, based on various measurable physiological factors, replacing division by sex or gender. Ideally, this would also solve the issue of intersex athletes, and potentially provide a more straighforward pathway for paralympic athletes wanting to compete in mainstream events. In the meantime, I think setting an upper limited of permitted hormone levels is a decent compromise. If you think the current limits are too high, then fair enough, I wouldn't particularly have an issue with them being lowered.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop


    Read the thread and tell me this isn't only lunacy, it's highly nefarious and incredibly damaging to actual women. And yes, actual. Because a woman is a female human.
    "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman." - Simone de Beauvoir
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Going to group this together under one post for the sake of tidiness.



    Gender identity is not a protected characteristic, true, but gender reassignment is.
    So what? Gender means nothing. Women have sex protected rights, not gender.




    [/quote]Couple of issues here. Firstly, self-ID. Broadly speaking, I'm not in favour of absolute self-ID, I think you should be able to demonstrate some evidence of sincerity if it came to a legal matter (though at the same time, anyone asking you to produce such evidence should be required to have reasonable suspicion that you are lying, not just a personal opinion on how feminine/masculine you look).[/quote]

    Identity politics is highly dangerous. Self ID is the height of self indulgence and narcissism. Consider say statistics based on sex, research based on sex. If people just self ID left and right, all of that is distorted.

    Secondly, sports. Ultimately, I think the eventual solution for sports (or at least athletics and individual events) will be some sort of boxing/weightlifting-style class system, based on various measurable physiological factors, replacing division by sex or gender. Ideally, this would also solve the issue of intersex athletes, and potentially provide a more straighforward pathway for paralympic athletes wanting to compete in mainstream events. In the meantime, I think setting an upper limited of permitted hormone levels is a decent compromise. If you think the current limits are too high, then fair enough, I wouldn't particularly have an issue with them being lowered.
    But how? Are you going to measure T levels for everyone? Are you going to have 10, 100m finals at the Olympics? Sorry but that is never going to be feasible. We are a dimorphic reproductive species. There is nothing wrong with using that as a basis. If there is a small subgroup of people that want to move away from that, let them play for themsleves. Disabled people are happy to compete in their own Olympics in their own right.


    Fair enough but 2 points: 1. TRAs always cry about how supposedly everyone disagreeing with them is "literally being violent" and 2. Yet they dish it out far more. That was the point.


    "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman." - Simone de Beauvoir
    Not sure a single quote by a single, infallible person is anything but a soundbite.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    (I'm assuming you mean XX?)

    This is one of the most blatant cases of moving the goalposts I've ever seen. You've literally just claimed "they are a man if they have a penis", and now you're claiming it's actually about chromosomes instead? So which is it?

    Also, it's long been recognised that using chromosomes to judge sex or gender is problematic. Even outside of trans issues, there are women who are XY or single-X, men who are XXY or XYY, and several other rarer conditions. This is a large part of the reason why athletics stopped sex verification by chromosome testing in 1996 - there were simply too many exceptions.
    It depends on both. What's more, your gender is literally your brain. It is by no means psychological, it is physical.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Let's get really radical, instead of picking people because of the colour of their skin or what they keep between their legs, we pick the best candidate for the job. It's called equality of opportunity and it's the policy of people who live in the real world.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twistednuke)
    Let's get really radical, instead of picking people because of the colour of their skin or what they keep between their legs, we pick the best candidate for the job. It's called equality of opportunity and it's the policy of people who live in the real world.
    Wait, so you mean to tell me women and minorities DONT deserve special treatment and that civil rights have come a long way since the 1920s to the point where we're all equal? HOW ABSURD!

    You mean to tell me that fighting discrimination with discrimination is abohreent and wrong? RIDICULOUS.

    Next you'll be telling me that the wage gap is not solely down to sexism, but more logical factors such as women's life choices! Get out of here!
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Wait, so you mean to tell me women and minorities DONT deserve special treatment and that civil rights have come a long way since the 1920s to the point where we're all equal? HOW ABSURD!

    You mean to tell me that fighting discrimination with discrimination is abohreent and wrong? RIDICULOUS.

    Next you'll be telling me that the wage gap is not solely down to sexism, but more logical factors such as women's life choices! Get out of here!
    Because life choices are made in a vacuum?

    Oh and only young fan kiddies think Friedman was right. I used to as well, before I realized what nonsense he thought would never work in reality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Because life choices are made in a vacuum?

    Oh and only young fan kiddies think Friedman was right. I used to as well, before I realized what nonsense he thought would never work in reality.
    What inherently do you disagree with him on?

    Also just because I have a picture of him in no way means I agree with everything he says. I just admire the guy. Agree or disagree with the man, you can't have anything but respect for someone like him.

    Also TIL: Many world leaders were young fan kiddies
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    What inherently do you disagree with him on?

    Also just because I have a picture of him in no way means I agree with everything he says. I just admire the guy. Agree or disagree with the man, you can't have anything but respect for someone like him.

    Also TIL: Many world leaders were young fan kiddies
    I was so into him I started reading some of his books. None of it is realistic. In reality, markets fail left, right, and center.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I was so into him I started reading some of his books. None of it is realistic. In reality, markets fail left, right, and center.
    Well, I've only started touching the surface of Milton's work, but he's certainly never claimed markets don't fail.

    He's a Nobel prize winning economist for god's sake...nobody gets to that level without having a certain degree of realism to themselves. He has certainly acknowledged that market failures occur, but he also states (and don't quote me on this) that these failures often mend themselves, and that if the government intervenes, these failures are exaccerbated.

    A good example would be the 1920s American market crashes. The government of the time decided to not intervene and it quickly restored itself. However, in 1929, the government took a more interventionist stance, and and I don't need to tell you how disasterous THAT was.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Well, I've only started touching the surface of Milton's work, but he's certainly never claimed markets don't fail.

    He's a Nobel prize winning economist for god's sake...nobody gets to that level without having a certain degree of realism to themselves. He has certainly acknowledged that market failures occur, but he also states (and don't quote me on this) that these failures often mend themselves, and that if the government intervenes, these failures are exaccerbated.

    A good example would be the 1920s American market crashes. The government of the time decided to not intervene and it quickly restored itself. However, in 1929, the government took a more interventionist stance, and and I don't need to tell you how disasterous THAT was.
    To reduce both events to a simple yes/no of government intervention is daftly simplistic.

    Never said he isn't insanely clever, or didn't do anything for economics. Just that by the time I was half way through his book I just couldn't go on any more.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    To reduce both events to a simple yes/no of government intervention is daftly simplistic.

    Never said he isn't insanely clever, or didn't do anything for economics. Just that by the time I was half way through his book I just couldn't go on any more.
    Of course, it's draftly simplistic. I don't have the time to write an entire book on why the 1929 stock market crash occurred, but government intervention was certainly an arguably substantial cause.

    Anyway, I suppose we'll simply agree to disagree.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Apologies for delayed reply, I've had a busy week.

    (Original post by yudothis)
    So what? Gender means nothing. Women have sex protected rights, not gender.
    Incorrect, if you actually check guidelines on what is meant by "gender reassignment" in the context of discrimination, it's relatively clear that it applies to trans people regardless of surgical operations. Discrimination against someone for being trans is just as illegal as discrimination against someone for their sex.

    Identity politics is highly dangerous. Self ID is the height of self indulgence and narcissism. Consider say statistics based on sex, research based on sex. If people just self ID left and right, all of that is distorted.
    Why? Will research specifically on cis men and women suddenly stop if self-ID becomes law?

    But how? Are you going to measure T levels for everyone? Are you going to have 10, 100m finals at the Olympics? Sorry but that is never going to be feasible. We are a dimorphic reproductive species. There is nothing wrong with using that as a basis. If there is a small subgroup of people that want to move away from that, let them play for themsleves.
    What is that basis, exactly? If it's due to the average man's physical advantages, then why stop there rather than dividing sports based on other physiological differences as well? You're repeating many of the same arguments misogynists employ to argue that there shouldn't be separate women's events at all.

    Fair enough but 2 points: 1. TRAs always cry about how supposedly everyone disagreeing with them is "literally being violent" and 2. Yet they dish it out far more. That was the point.
    And my point was that it's very difficult to assess a Gish Gallop by their nature, and frankly I don't really see how what you're now claiming your point was connects to the bulk of the tweet-thread (much of which involves either cases where the trans status of the person involved is incidental, or where the author attacks trans people for reasons unconnected to them being trans).

    Not sure a single quote by a single, infallible person is anything but a soundbite.
    I did consider typing out a point along the same lines myself, but felt the famous De Beauvoir quote put it across more succinctly. Namely that going back to the start of the second-wave movements, feminism was at its core an anti-essentialist movement, that rejected the idea than "woman" and "man" were inherent categories rather than constructed ones. Just as anti-racist movements have done with "black" and "white", and so on.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Apologies for delayed reply, I've had a busy week.



    Incorrect, if you actually check guidelines on what is meant by "gender reassignment" in the context of discrimination, it's relatively clear that it applies to trans people regardless of surgical operations. Discrimination against someone for being trans is just as illegal as discrimination against someone for their sex.



    Why? Will research specifically on cis men and women suddenly stop if self-ID becomes law?



    What is that basis, exactly? If it's due to the average man's physical advantages, then why stop there rather than dividing sports based on other physiological differences as well? You're repeating many of the same arguments misogynists employ to argue that there shouldn't be separate women's events at all.



    And my point was that it's very difficult to assess a Gish Gallop by their nature, and frankly I don't really see how what you're now claiming your point was connects to the bulk of the tweet-thread (much of which involves either cases where the trans status of the person involved is incidental, or where the author attacks trans people for reasons unconnected to them being trans).



    I did consider typing out a point along the same lines myself, but felt the famous De Beauvoir quote put it across more succinctly. Namely that going back to the start of the second-wave movements, feminism was at its core an anti-essentialist movement, that rejected the idea than "woman" and "man" were inherent categories rather than constructed ones. Just as anti-racist movements have done with "black" and "white", and so on.
    Say bathrooms or sports are sex segregated not gender. That's what I meant.

    Crime statistics for one. It's been shown that both male and female trans retain male and female crime rates. If all of a sudden, especially male sex offenders, pretend to be women, and we record these crimes as committed by women, that is a huge distortion.

    This is pure nonsense. You're simply denying biological reality, that men and women are two separate classes, with significantly different physiology. It's frankly an argument I hear every trans activists make when trying to justify how men should compete against women. It's dishonest and sickening. Do you also want to categorize events by height like some of these morons? Amazing, Ronaldo and Messi would never play against each other because they'd be in different height categories. You want 10 different 100m finals based on height and weight? Yea amazing.

    https://terfisaslur.com/

    Except you won't find many second wave / radfems today who will argue that patriarchy isn't based on sex. Girls in the third world aren't aborted or abandoned because of gender, but because of sex.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Say bathrooms or sports are sex segregated not gender.
    Sometimes they are and sometimes they're not. In the UK specifically, there's no codified law specifying who the service providers of segregated toilets are obliged to let or prevent using them - in theory it's up to the providers. However, guidelines on good practice generally indicate that trans people should be allowed to use the toilet of the gender they present as.

    Crime statistics for one. It's been shown that both male and female trans retain male and female crime rates. If all of a sudden, especially male sex offenders, pretend to be women, and we record these crimes as committed by women, that is a huge distortion.
    Accepting this purely for the sake of argument (and of course, any such argument would require the reverse context of trans women being victims of crime at a significantly higher rate than cis men), it wouldn't be a "huge distortion" at all. For a start, we're talking <1% of the population - they're unlikely to even have a statistically significant effect in most general data, never mind a "huge distortion".

    But more significantly though, it's no more a "distortion" than including any minority subgroup within a wider study would be just because that subgroup happens to have statistically significant differences. It's merely a statistical factor that those conducting the study might then opt to control for if relevant.

    For example, if a study of experiences of antisemitism found that converts to Judaism experienced a statistically significant lower degree of antisemitism than Jews on average, that would not make it a "distortion" to include the former in the study under the designation of "Jews", rather than "non-Jews". It would just make it another factor to be controlled for.

    This is pure nonsense. You're simply denying biological reality, that men and women are two separate classes, with significantly different physiology. It's frankly an argument I hear every trans activists make when trying to justify how men should compete against women. It's dishonest and sickening. Do you also want to categorize events by height like some of these morons? Amazing, Ronaldo and Messi would never play against each other because they'd be in different height categories. You want 10 different 100m finals based on height and weight? Yea amazing.
    Ironic that the longest paragraph in your post is also the one with the least substance of argument, and instead just lots of assertations and calling people "sickening" and "morons".....

    Not sure what relevance this has since I'm pretty sure I've not used the word TERF in this entire thread. But while we're here, Gish Gallop again.

    Except you won't find many second wave
    You won't find many second wavers today full stop because the second wave is over, most consider it to have finished around the 1980s.

    / radfems today who will argue that patriarchy isn't based on sex.
    That being one of several reasons why many who identified as "radfems" were effectively left behind by the third-wavers.

    Girls in the third world aren't aborted or abandoned because of gender, but because of sex.
    No, if it's due to the social/cultural construction of the role of women in their societies, that's gender.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    x
    Nice seeing some common sense here once in a while.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Sometimes they are and sometimes they're not. In the UK specifically, there's no codified law specifying who the service providers of segregated toilets are obliged to let or prevent using them - in theory it's up to the providers. However, guidelines on good practice generally indicate that trans people should be allowed to use the toilet of the gender they present as.
    Self ID would mean you could present male and still use the women's.

    Accepting this purely for the sake of argument (and of course, any such argument would require the reverse context of trans women being victims of crime at a significantly higher rate than cis men), it wouldn't be a "huge distortion" at all. For a start, we're talking <1% of the population - they're unlikely to even have a statistically significant effect in most general data, never mind a "huge distortion".

    But more significantly though, it's no more a "distortion" than including any minority subgroup within a wider study would be just because that subgroup happens to have statistically significant differences. It's merely a statistical factor that those conducting the study might then opt to control for if relevant.

    For example, if a study of experiences of antisemitism found that converts to Judaism experienced a statistically significant lower degree of antisemitism than Jews on average, that would not make it a "distortion" to include the former in the study under the designation of "Jews", rather than "non-Jews". It would just make it another factor to be controlled for.
    That is an excellent point. But when you consider that most sex offenders are male and suddenly a ton of them identified as women, that would in fact be statistically significant.



    Ironic that the longest paragraph in your post is also the one with the least substance of argument, and instead just lots of assertations and calling people "sickening" and "morons".....
    Then you should have no trouble actually addressing it. Do you deny physiological differences exist? Is your suggestion also to have height and weight categories? Testosterone ranges?



    Not sure what relevance this has since I'm pretty sure I've not used the word TERF in this entire thread. But while we're here, Gish Gallop again.
    Didn't say you did, but rather that you dismissed the abusive nature of the trans agenda.


    You won't find many second wavers today full stop because the second wave is over, most consider it to have finished around the 1980s.
    Oh how wrong you are.

    That being one of several reasons why many who identified as "radfems" were effectively left behind by the third-wavers.



    No, if it's due to the social/cultural construction of the role of women in their societies, that's gender.
    No, they were left behind because they are liberals.

    Except the only way for them to identify "gender" during pregnancy is by looking at sex markers...Not to mention you are essentially saying that the role of women in society is not dependent on their sex. Nice assumption.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...er-recognition

    The plot thickens.

    Labour feminists should just **** off and join the Tories.

    Proof yet again that as awful as Mays government is, it will remain in power indefinitely whilst labour bickers over nonsense that ordinary people don’t care about it are hostile to.

    Whilst it’s hilarious, it is bad for the country.
 
 
 

4,389

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.