Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    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.
    This has been going on for a while...

    Only difference is, even left wing outlets like the Guardian are now reporting the other side of the issue.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Self ID would mean you could present male and still use the women's.
    And I've said I'm not entirely sold on absolute self-ID, due to the potential for fraudulent claims.

    I'd say an appropriate analogous situation here would perhaps by religion. If I have to specify my religion for any official purposes, I would expect the government or whoever is asking to accept whatever religion I specify without some kind of "purity test" to determine whether I am a "real" Muslim/Christian/Jew/etc. They would, however, be justified in not accepting it if they had reason to believe my claim is not genuine and I don't really consider myself to be of the faith I gave.


    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.
    I very much doubt that trans sex offenders form a statistically significant portion of sex offenders in general.



    Then you should have no trouble actually addressing it.
    Not much to address, that was kind of my point.

    Do you deny physiological differences exist? Is your suggestion also to have height and weight categories? Testosterone ranges?
    We already do have weight categories in some sports, and testosterone ranges are already used to determine ability to compete in women's athletics events. I can't see height being used as a category, with the possible exceptions of sports where height is a quite direct factor in ability (e.g. basketball).


    Didn't say you did, but rather that you dismissed the abusive nature of the trans agenda.
    Because I think arguing over anecdotal perceptions and walls of quotes (it takes just a few minutes to find something similar but opposite) is largely unproductive.


    Oh how wrong you are.

    No, they were left behind because they are liberals.
    Who are liberals? The "radfems"? First time I've heard that claim.

    Except the only way for them to identify "gender" during pregnancy is by looking at sex markers...
    During pregnancy you're not really identifying gender, or even sex - you're making a probability judgement about what the new baby will look like when it's born and how it will be perceived.

    Not to mention you are essentially saying that the role of women in society is not dependent on their sex. Nice assumption.
    It isn't inherently, only insofar as the society in question restricts gender roles to those with particular sex characteristics. There's a difference between sex and gender in the same way that there's a difference between skin tone and race; the former is at some level an observable physiological feature, while the latter is a social/cultural category. It may well be heavily based on the former, but it does not therefore follow that they are synonymous.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I very much doubt that trans sex offenders form a statistically significant portion of sex offenders in general.
    Not in general, but of women.





    We already do have weight categories in some sports, and testosterone ranges are already used to determine ability to compete in women's athletics events. I can't see height being used as a category, with the possible exceptions of sports where height is a quite direct factor in ability (e.g. basketball).
    Do you honestly believe men should compete against women?

    Btw, the Testosterone level is a joke, it's 10nmol/L - most female athletes are below 3.


    Because I think arguing over anecdotal perceptions and walls of quotes (it takes just a few minutes to find something similar but opposite) is largely unproductive.
    While I agree with that sentiment, to simply ignore that a very loud side to the agenda behaves in this, is naive. Silencing it, validates them. Also, these people tend to rise to the top of charities and organizations. E.g. most LGBT+ orgs have been taken over by white middle-aged men. Coincidence? No. Coincidence that that coincides with a much more aggressive, particularly towards lesbian, agenda? No.


    Who are liberals? The "radfems"? First time I've heard that claim.
    American "liberal". The SJW types, the snowflakes, the ones that cry if they are offended, but are happy to offend/abuse/silence those they disagree with. That say others are fascists, while themselves being the most fascist in discourse. The people that propagate identity politics. That want to change definitions and language. "Radfems" are gender critical. They are most certainly not "liberal".




    It isn't inherently, only insofar as the society in question restricts gender roles to those with particular sex characteristics. There's a difference between sex and gender in the same way that there's a difference between skin tone and race; the former is at some level an observable physiological feature, while the latter is a social/cultural category. It may well be heavily based on the former, but it does not therefore follow that they are synonymous.
    Um yes, sex=/= gender. That is very much what gender critics are arguing for.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Disgusting, China and Russia are laughing at us they probably can't believe this ****. This is damaging the country, so what if white men account for majority of Parliament? News flash, majority of GREAT BRITAIN itself is white. I refuse to accept this idea of an individual who cannot accept their own gender to have a say in the country, you want to represent LGBT people, fine, go for it I have homosexual friends and they're one of the nicest people I know, transgenders should only represent transgenders, I don't want a trans-individual brainwashing the people of the state into "oh you have a ****? Nah you're a woman" it's disgusting, these poor innocent people were brainwashed at a young age that gender doesn't exist and that "toxic masculinity is bad!" and "Females are better than men!" so what happens? The men, unable to express their masculinity, become women and the women, believing that their meant to "fight the patriarchy" become men. And I say "become" lightly, because they're still their biological sex.

    The state has robbed the transgenders individual of their identity so they are forced to create their own, that the concept of transgenders.

    Jeremy Bumlicker Corbyn has no respect for white people which is embarrassing because he's white himself, how can I vote for someone who I expect to respect and care for the country when he can't even defend his own demographic?

    Everyone is thinking "yes evil white men are going!" and they fail to understand that if white men get kicked to the curb, WE'LL BE NEXT. I'm a brown Muslim man, and either the SJW is going to then attack me for being "a dirty male pig" or they'll attack white women "for having white privilege!" and then theyll black women for not being trans. This will be their dream, they will never be satisfied they want something to **** themselves with at night and they'll keep coming up with excuses to be the victim.

    My constiency is a Labour all-women shortlist, why? Because they know they can do whatever bull and we'll still vote for them. I can't wait till I'm 18 and I'll vote for the Lib Dems or any other party that's not Labour because they're taking us, the safe seat, for granted.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Not in general, but of women.
    Who are a statistically insignificant proportion of sex offenders anyway.

    Do you honestly believe men should compete against women?
    I've no inherent opposition to it, I'm just pragmatically OK with segregated events temporarily on fairness grounds until standards for fair inter-competition are determined.

    If you're just dogmatically opposed to trans women ever competing in the same events as other women under any circumstances, then I think this exchange is pointless.

    Btw, the Testosterone level is a joke, it's 10nmol/L - most female athletes are below 3.
    I'm not particularly opposed to it being reduced, though it should be again noted that these hormone regulations have been far more to do with intersex women than trans women. Also, even in its current context, the testosterone limits have been controversial for a couple of reasons:
    i) the more practical issue of "functional" T - higher raw T levels are often irrelevant for women with AIS, as their bodies don't fully respond to it.
    ii) the more moral question of sexism - it puts a limit on what is considered an "acceptable" natural advantage for a woman to have, when there is, and likely never would be, an equivalent bar for male competitors.


    While I agree with that sentiment, to simply ignore that a very loud side to the agenda behaves in this, is naive. Silencing it, validates them.
    And those on the other side will claim the same or similar about those they consider TERFs, and so on. Everyone will claim that their comments should only be seen as jokes/satire or knowingly empty (and thus non-threatening), while the other side's should be seen as serious and threatening. Ultimately a lot of it will come down to everyone claiming "We're the marginalised/non-dominant group in this context, so we should get the benefit of the doubt." I've generally been wanting to leave that can of worms closed, at least for this thread.

    American "liberal". The SJW types, the snowflakes, the ones that cry if they are offended, but are happy to offend/abuse/silence those they disagree with. That say others are fascists, while themselves being the most fascist in discourse.
    Oh, so it just boils down to this cliché again.....



    "Radfems" are gender critical. They are most certainly not "liberal".
    Apologies, your comment just said "they", so I didn't really get who you were on about.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Who are a statistically insignificant proportion of sex offenders anyway.



    I've no inherent opposition to it, I'm just pragmatically OK with segregated events temporarily on fairness grounds until standards for fair inter-competition are determined.

    If you're just dogmatically opposed to trans women ever competing in the same events as other women under any circumstances, then I think this exchange is pointless.



    I'm not particularly opposed to it being reduced, though it should be again noted that these hormone regulations have been far more to do with intersex women than trans women. Also, even in its current context, the testosterone limits have been controversial for a couple of reasons:
    i) the more practical issue of "functional" T - higher raw T levels are often irrelevant for women with AIS, as their bodies don't fully respond to it.
    ii) the more moral question of sexism - it puts a limit on what is considered an "acceptable" natural advantage for a woman to have, when there is, and likely never would be, an equivalent bar for male competitors.




    And those on the other side will claim the same or similar about those they consider TERFs, and so on. Everyone will claim that their comments should only be seen as jokes/satire or knowingly empty (and thus non-threatening), while the other side's should be seen as serious and threatening. Ultimately a lot of it will come down to everyone claiming "We're the marginalised/non-dominant group in this context, so we should get the benefit of the doubt." I've generally been wanting to leave that can of worms closed, at least for this thread.



    Oh, so it just boils down to this cliché again.....





    Apologies, your comment just said "they", so I didn't really get who you were on about.
    And thus including transwomen as women will have a huge impact on women's figures...it's not that hard to grasp.

    You're assuming transwomen are women. Not the case. True, we don't actually really know the impact of T levels yet - even more reason to not just let them compete on arbitrary parameters. T levels were just one example, though, men don't lose their larger heart and lungs, higher VO2 max, narrower pelvis, denser bones, larger height and I am sure I even forgot some things.

    Great, a random quote, you must have a point.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.