Transgender rights discussion

stepic said:
you seem to be conflating sex and gender.

of course trans women weren't born with a vagina. if their gender identity matched their sex they wouldn't be trans.
Click to expand...

The issue seems to be whether biological sex including physiological and society differences including advantages, disadvantages and vulnerabilities experienced by those based on their biological sex can just be overridden by someone declaring themselves that they no longer apply

The whole thread exudes ironic male privilege, villifying women for being afraid of risk posed by male-bodied people whilst pretending the whole debate is nothing more than some silly Tweets by a has-been comedy writer.


Bunch of men agreeing that a women saying single sex spaces should be reserved for those of a particular sex if a stupid old, haggard, mentalist TERF whore. Nothing to see here, of course.
 
Last edited:
stw2022 said:
The issue seems to be whether biological sex including physiological and society differences including advantages, disadvantages and vulnerabilities experienced by those based on their biological sex can just be overridden by someone declaring themselves that they no longer apply

The whole thread exudes ironic male privilege, villifying women for being afraid of risk posed by male-bodied people whilst pretending the whole debate is nothing more than some silly Tweets by a has-been comedy writer.


Bunch of men agreeing that a women saying single sex spaces should be reserved for those of a particular sex if a stupid old, haggard, mentalist TERF whore. Nothing to see here, of course.
Click to expand...

Women are more supporting of trans people than men are.
 
crappycraperson said:
IMO it would be false equivalency to compare homosexuality with trans identity since latter has medical implications which former does not. I have seen people make similar comparisons by saying they would not want teachers snitch to parents about students not wearing religious symbols like Hijab or disclose them being gay. But a student progressing towards being trans ultimately will have some medical implications that will require participation from parents so it is an entirely different issue. You can not on one hand say trans youth are at heightened risk and then on the other compare it to all kinds of different situations others might face in schools. Yes, a part of that risk is from opposition from parents but in that case the only solution is to involve state social services not to hide it from parents.
Click to expand...

I think the point being made was that this was supposed to be the safe one - when there are permanent changes, the parents still have power. And some trans people argued at that time (I didn't think they were right), that this distinction is a false one since the real aim of people making these arguments and writing these laws is to basically make trans people non-existent.
And I think that's what's happening in that NYT article. The schools are not doing anything medical, but are still being criticised by proud liberals (let's not even go to the conservative opposition). And the very first example in that article explains why:
"He had tried to come out to his parents before, he said, but they didn’t take it seriously, which is why he asked his school for support."
...
Mrs. Bradshaw said she wouldn’t align herself with Republican lawmakers who sought to ban L.G.B.T.Q. rights, but she also felt as though her school’s policy left no room for nuance.

“It is almost impossible to have these discussions,” Mrs. Bradshaw said. “There is no forum for someone like me.”
Click to expand...

she used my trigger word...
I think a policy where they respect a student's wishes without making permanent changes (again, how is this different from hiding if a gay person is out) is nuanced.
...

Transitioning socially, Dr. Anderson wrote, “is a major and potentially life-altering decision that requires parental involvement, for many reasons.”
Click to expand...
exactly the slippery slope i thought was wrong. those random trans stalinists i follow are vindicated.
...
Mr. Perez said that although he was a Catholic who objected to his child transitioning on religious grounds, he respected the rights of families who disagreed with him because he believed it was up to parents to decide on such matters.
Click to expand...
how magnanimous!

...

anyway thankfully something is being done about it!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...ng-care-minors-re-elected-president-rcna68461
Trump vows to 'stop' gender-affirming care for minors if re-elected president
Trump said he would also push schools to “promote positive education about the nuclear family” and “the roles of mothers and fathers."
Gender-affirming care, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, “consists of an array of services that may include medical, surgical, mental health, and non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary people.”
He said he would also prohibit any federal agency from working to “promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age," not just for minors.

...

My basic logic is that, since this is the opposition, my personal nuanced debate-club feelings are worth nothing. There are two sides here.
 
When will people realise that biology and identity are not mutually exclusive.

Let people be who they want to be and accept them for their choice, for there is no universal wisdom around these matters. All of us are on our own quest for peace and happiness. One journey isn’t any more superior than the other.
 
HTG said:
I think the idea that we shouldn’t judge people based on their opinions is about as ridiculous as it gets. What else should we judge people on if not their opinions and their acts?
Click to expand...
I had to tell my son it was OK for him not to have to respect a person's point of view. Respect their right to their point of view, but the opinion itself should get the beating it deserves.
 
Last edited:
UK Athletics wants open category for male and transgender athletes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/64514819

UK Athletics wants a change in legislation to ensure the women's category is lawfully reserved for competitors who are recorded female at birth.

The governing body says all transgender athletes should be allowed to compete with men in an open category.
Chair Ian Beattie said the governing body wanted athletics to be a "welcoming environment for all", but added it had a responsibility to "ensure fairness" in women's competition.

"We would appeal to all those engaged in this discussion online to share their thoughts in a way that is respectful of the differing opinions and sensitive nature of the debate," said Beattie.

UKA disagrees with the use of testosterone suppression for transgender women as there is "currently no scientifically robust, independent research showing that all male performance advantage is eliminated".

UKA added it has seen "no evidence that it is safe for transgender women to reduce their hormonal levels by testosterone suppression", and that there is "insufficient research to understand the effects on transgender women if such testosterone suppression is carried out suddenly".

Therefore it would instead like to reserve the female category for those who were recorded female at birth and have not undergone transition.

UKA does not believe the 'sporting exemption' introduced in the Equalities Act of 2010 allows them to lawfully exclude transgender women in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate from competing.

BBC Sport understands the government disagrees with UK Athletics' stance that the law does not allow it to ban transgender women from female events on fairness grounds.

It believes the 2010 Equality Act does allow sports to protect the female category.

---

Make their suggestion make sense. They already can and have changed the rules to limit trans participation.

And an 'open' category? So trans men, trans women and cis men? Or will trans men have to compete with women because they were recorded female at birth?
 
Frosty said:
UK Athletics wants open category for male and transgender athletes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/64514819

UK Athletics wants a change in legislation to ensure the women's category is lawfully reserved for competitors who are recorded female at birth.

The governing body says all transgender athletes should be allowed to compete with men in an open category.
Chair Ian Beattie said the governing body wanted athletics to be a "welcoming environment for all", but added it had a responsibility to "ensure fairness" in women's competition.

"We would appeal to all those engaged in this discussion online to share their thoughts in a way that is respectful of the differing opinions and sensitive nature of the debate," said Beattie.

UKA disagrees with the use of testosterone suppression for transgender women as there is "currently no scientifically robust, independent research showing that all male performance advantage is eliminated".

UKA added it has seen "no evidence that it is safe for transgender women to reduce their hormonal levels by testosterone suppression", and that there is "insufficient research to understand the effects on transgender women if such testosterone suppression is carried out suddenly".

Therefore it would instead like to reserve the female category for those who were recorded female at birth and have not undergone transition.

UKA does not believe the 'sporting exemption' introduced in the Equalities Act of 2010 allows them to lawfully exclude transgender women in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate from competing.

BBC Sport understands the government disagrees with UK Athletics' stance that the law does not allow it to ban transgender women from female events on fairness grounds.

It believes the 2010 Equality Act does allow sports to protect the female category.

---

Make their suggestion make sense. They already can and have changed the rules to limit trans participation.

And an 'open' category? So trans men, trans women and cis men? Or will trans men have to compete with women because they were recorded female at birth?
Click to expand...
An open category makes the most sense. You retain the integrity of fair competition whilst not excluding anyone from racing.
 
DRJosh said:
Let people be who they want to be and accept them for their choice, for there is no universal wisdom around these matters. All of us are on our own quest for peace and happiness. One journey isn’t any more superior than the other.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that, while also saying that society may need to decide, in a few areas, what the rules are should the rights of one group clash with the rights of another. There should always be room for a debate about what those areas are, why and the limits, so a resolution can be found.
 
Frosty said:
And an 'open' category? So trans men, trans women and cis men? Or will trans men have to compete with women because they were recorded female at birth?
Click to expand...

Do most trans men take testosterone? If so it mightn't be possible for them to compete in the female category, if they'd even want to of course. I'm guessing that they'd be eligible for a Therapeutic Use Exemption if their testosterone levels were in the allowed range for this potential open category.
 
Always thought that this was the cleanest way to get around the issue. It protects the integrity of female sports, and also gives trans people a place they can still compete if they wish. I know some trans individual will view it as discrimination, but you are never going to have every single individual 100% happy, and at least they can play the sports they love still this way.
 
Frosty said:
UK Athletics wants open category for male and transgender athletes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/64514819

UK Athletics wants a change in legislation to ensure the women's category is lawfully reserved for competitors who are recorded female at birth.

The governing body says all transgender athletes should be allowed to compete with men in an open category.
Chair Ian Beattie said the governing body wanted athletics to be a "welcoming environment for all", but added it had a responsibility to "ensure fairness" in women's competition.

"We would appeal to all those engaged in this discussion online to share their thoughts in a way that is respectful of the differing opinions and sensitive nature of the debate," said Beattie.

UKA disagrees with the use of testosterone suppression for transgender women as there is "currently no scientifically robust, independent research showing that all male performance advantage is eliminated".

UKA added it has seen "no evidence that it is safe for transgender women to reduce their hormonal levels by testosterone suppression", and that there is "insufficient research to understand the effects on transgender women if such testosterone suppression is carried out suddenly".

Therefore it would instead like to reserve the female category for those who were recorded female at birth and have not undergone transition.

UKA does not believe the 'sporting exemption' introduced in the Equalities Act of 2010 allows them to lawfully exclude transgender women in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate from competing.

BBC Sport understands the government disagrees with UK Athletics' stance that the law does not allow it to ban transgender women from female events on fairness grounds.

It believes the 2010 Equality Act does allow sports to protect the female category.

---

Make their suggestion make sense. They already can and have changed the rules to limit trans participation.

And an 'open' category? So trans men, trans women and cis men? Or will trans men have to compete with women because they were recorded female at birth?
Click to expand...

I presume the rationale is that cis women are the most physically/physiologically disadvantaged, so need a protected category all to themselves.

Outside that protected category, everyone else can compete against each other.
 
Dargonk said:
Always thought that this was the cleanest way to get around the issue. It protects the integrity of female sports, and also gives trans people a place they can still compete if they wish. I know some trans individual will view it as discrimination, but you are never going to have every single individual 100% happy, and at least they can play the sports they love still this way.
Click to expand...

In theory, but it's also going to be such a niche category that I guess it could end up in a scenario where the professional status of current athletes is at jeopardy due to lack of competition?
 
groovyalbert said:
In theory, but it's also going to be such a niche category that I guess it could end up in a scenario where the professional status of current athletes is at jeopardy due to lack of competition?
Click to expand...

This makes me wonder how niche an existing olympic sport has to become before getting removed from the program. Like, how many transgender steeplechase competitors are there?

If they go for a third gender category then there should be some ground rules when it comes to number of competitors and the median level of said competitors.
 
groovyalbert said:
In theory, but it's also going to be such a niche category that I guess it could end up in a scenario where the professional status of current athletes is at jeopardy due to lack of competition?
Click to expand...
Scandi Red said:
This makes me wonder how niche an existing olympic sport has to become before getting removed from the program. Like, how many transgender steeplechase competitors are there?

If they go for a third gender category then there should be some ground rules when it comes to number of competitors and the median level of said competitors.
Click to expand...

Either you guys or me are misunderstanding the proposal. I don’t see any mention of category for trans athletes only. They would be competing in an “open” category, which also includes cis men. So not niche at all.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Either you guys or me are misunderstanding the proposal. I don’t see any mention of category for trans athletes only. They would be competing in an “open” category, which also includes cis men. So not niche at all.
Click to expand...

Ah I see. Thanks. So would there be a CIS men only category and a separate men's category that also includes all trans athletes regardless of gender? Or would the male category just be reclassified as "open" and anyone who isn't a CIS woman be categorized there? Either way, I think the likelihood of seeing trans athletes at a professional level has taken a hit with either decision, but I do also appreciate the need to protect the women's categories. I just wonder if taking each case on it's individual merit isn't still the best approach given the relatively low cases, and defining clear protocol in-regards to age-of-transition, etc.
 
groovyalbert said:
Ah I see. Thanks. So would there be a CIS men only category and a separate men's category that also includes all trans athletes regardless of gender? Or would the male category just be reclassified as "open" and anyone who isn't a CIS woman be categorized there? Either way, I think the likelihood of seeing trans athletes at a professional level has taken a hit with either decision, but I do also appreciate the need to protect the women's categories. I just wonder if taking each case on it's individual merit isn't still the best approach given the relatively low cases, and defining clear protocol in-regards to age-of-transition, etc.
Click to expand...

I think that’s what they’re proposing.
 
It is very sensible, and it would pretty much end the issue... except there is still the whole shameful debacle of some female athletes having to prove they were genuinely female at birth. Definitely need a better system for that.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
There’s no proposal they could make that people wouldn’t protest against.
Click to expand...

That is true, but I think that this proposal genuinely might cause more protests. Sometimes consistent and complete injustice is better than half-measures.

But I don't have the solution to this so I'll leave the discussion to the very thick-skinned and (hopefully) wise.
 
altodevil said:
To encourage more women to play chess
Click to expand...

Yep fair - is it only recent they've added this category or has it always been split?

Why don't women like chess!?

Revan said:
Cause male players are far better at chess than females. There has been no female who was a world champion in open category, and only one ever in top 10.
Click to expand...

Yeahhhh, but there's nothing that makes a male inherently better at a game like chess, it's just about interest/access surely?
 
Duafc said:
Yeahhhh, but there's nothing that makes a male inherently better at a game like chess, it's just about interest/access surely?
Click to expand...
I guess almost surely, yes. Same how males in general are more successful scientists, politicians, or company owners. Probably to do a lot with encouragements kids get, so a social construct engrained in our society.
 
Duafc said:
Why don't women like chess!?
Click to expand...

For the same reason women "don't like" video games and coding. Once a space becomes too male dominated, particularly by the nerdy kind, it's not very tempting to join. For various reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.