Nini Manumua - know her name

[EDguy89]

And on the concept of "hate", real quick.

The seeds of fear that you sow about changing rooms. The utter terror about the prospect of someone preying on another does one thing and one thing alone: leads directly to hate.

So don't go playing the "everyone hates women" card when, in your case, you're very much guilty of hating trans people.

Again, trans people exist.

Laurel Hubbard is a woman.

[fishbiscuits]

Yet again... I am beginning to feel like a broken record... but it is possible to acknowledge that things like changing room protocol might need some constructive solutions. Without this spitefulness, misgendering, and conflating trans women with predatory men fraudulently entering women's changing rooms (does this even happen?)

The issue actually cuts both ways, as I imagine any trans person who has not yet transitioned and is uncomfortable in their body would rather have some privacy too.

[alex_b]

This whole anti-trans agenda is almost identical to the homophobic debates right that continent today. The same ?it?s not natural? argument. The same casual implication that trans people / gay people are sexual predators. The same ?won?t you think of the children? argument while ignoring the harm done by the status quo.

I also find it interesting how many of those making such noise about this have never shown the slightest interest in real women?s issues like gender based violence, the gender pay gap, health inequality, or real children?s issue like child poverty or education. It?s almost as if concern for women and children isn?t their real agenda?.

[TheCat]

Its amazing how quick some people are to brand what in years gone by would have been labelled as 'a bit off' or disagreeable .......as 'hate'....

why does everything need to be so extreme?

i.e. we dont seem to have 'sexism' anymore, we have 'misogyny'.......really? is he builder who wolf-wistles from the roof guilty of a hatred towards all women?.....might sound trivial.....but as progressives keep telling everyone...words matter...

[JohnL]

On Sky News Now "Sports are not divided up by categories other than sex" - I think that's the sports scientist guy quoted earlier in this thread.

But they are in the Paralympics - and that is a real success.

[oimissus]

They are divided up by other things - AND sex. There are some mixed sex paralympian teams - but they are clearly mixed sex (and of course there's mixed doubles in tennis). Otherwise they are divided by sex and ability.

That's fine by me. That's not sex denial, which is what's going on here. Hubbard would compete against other 'low testosterone' males. (And females taking testosterone could compete against other females taking testosterone - I believe Ross Tucker has said that females taking testosterone still don't stand a chance against men, by and large.)

But not against women, who aren't low testosterone males. Manumua wouldn't be displaced from the women's team. The women's team would be a single sex, female-only team.

Because sex is still the biggest determiner of difference on the playing field.

[KidKruger]

Can someone please clarify..

Reading this thread there seems to be a conclusion that:

Questioning physical fairness of women competing with other humans with higher testosterone/strength/power = transgender hatred

Is that what is being said ?

[JohnL]

Not what I'm saying - I stand up for T in LGBT and the rights of Trans women and men.

But if there's an issue we need to deal with it pragmatically WITHOUT making it a general Transphobic thing.

[oimissus]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can someone please clarify..

>

> Reading this thread there seems to be a conclusion

> that:

>

> Questioning physical fairness of women competing

> with other humans with higher

> testosterone/strength/power = transgender hatred

>

> Is that what is being said ?

Yes - those 'other humans' being male, however they identify (see the need for clear language?).

Got it in one.

This is a useful resource comparing, in a single year (2016), high school boys against elite women at that years Olympics. The differences are stark. How anyone can deny this I can't think. If you have been through male puberty you have huge physical advantages over women, and the current IOC rules for trans-identifying males(which one of their trans creators has admitted weren't backed by data and are unfair to women) do not negate that. And one, just one, woman losing out is one too many.

https://boysvswomen.com/#/

[oimissus]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not what I'm saying - I stand up for T in LGBT and

> the rights of Trans women and men.

But not for women, I notice.

And this issue shows why the T should not be with the LGB, because sexuality makes no difference to sporting ability. Sex, however, does.

[fishbiscuits]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Questioning physical fairness of women competing

> with other humans with higher

> testosterone/strength/power = transgender hatred

>

> Is that what is being said ?

Not at all - at least not from me. I refer you to my above post which I hope clarifies my position

> 1) Is it OK for MTF trans athletes to compete

> against women? Many people would say no, and

> that's fine. I get it.

> 2) Is it OK to intentionally call trans women

> "men", "he", etc. Accuse them of being delusional.

> To call trans athletes "cheats". No. It's now

> bordering on hate speech.

Questioning the fairness is fine, I agree (of course) that there is a biological advantage. But I strongly believe the language used should be respectful, rather than intentionally offensive.

[fishbiscuits]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not what I'm saying - I stand up for T in LGBT and

> the rights of Trans women and men.

John gets it. The voice of reason. It's an issue we need to find a solution to, without nasty, spiteful language that paves the way for wider transphobia.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Its amazing how quick some people are to brand

> what in years gone by would have been labelled as

> 'a bit off' or disagreeable .......as 'hate'....

>

> why does everything need to be so extreme?

In my opinion - homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism all fall under the category of hatred.

If you don't want to be accused of any of the above, then use respectful language when discussing delicate issues. Misgendering trans people or calling them "delusional" is analogous to racial or homophobic slurs. It is every bit as bad as calling a black person the 'n' word. Probably worse.

[fishbiscuits]

oimissus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But not for women, I notice.

This is essentially a straw man argument. You accuse those who disagree with your views of not caring about women. It is complete nonsense. A logical fallacy. Concern for genetic women and trans people is not mutually exclusive.

[oimissus]

Calling for respectful language doesn't sit well with referring to women as "genetic women", as though we're a subset of our own sex. We aren't.

And, yet again, you are ignoring (purposefully?) the fact that using "respectful" but obfuscating language is why we are where we are now. Honesty is the best policy, after all.

Let's lob another fact into the mix - hopefully you'll find this one tolerably respectful. Hubbard is 43. The average age for women competing at elite level in this sport is 24. A woman has a 1 in 300,000 chance of doing so at the age of 43.

Everyone still sure Hubbard beat Manumua fair and square, because she wasn't good enough?

[fishbiscuits]

oimissus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Everyone still sure Hubbard beat Manumua fair and square, because she wasn't good enough?

I've already agreed that there is a biological advantage. And yes I agree it is problematic. I don't know what more you want from me on that point.

The phrase "genetic women" is not intentionally disrespectful or spiteful. I was simply trying to be unambiguous. I could have said "cisgender". I suspect you would have disliked this also. I suspect you won't be satisfied until we all align with your transphobic agenda of labelling trans women as "men".

[oimissus]

You're not trying to be unambiguous at all, that's a really disingenuous thing to say. Using obfuscating language is deliberately ambiguous. That language is all about deflection, ensuring that light isn't cast on what's being said.

You're damn right I reject 'cis' - how dare you suggest that any woman identifies with the stereotypes associated with her sex (aka 'gender')? Women have been fighting that for a century, and yet this so-called progressive ideology legitimises that sexism.

I'm sorry you consider clear language and biological reality transphobic. You render that word meaningless by doing so, however, something that won't help those experiencing actual transphobia.

[TheCat]

It's funny how we are all allowed to choose our own labels, which everyone else must use, in order to be respectful.

But have most men and women agreed to be labelled as 'cisgender'? Perhaps they prefer 'man' or 'woman' to this fabricated terminology....

Apols...im being intentionally antagonistic with that...but more to highlight the total minefield of hypersensitivity there is to immediately brand something disagreeable as 'hate'....

I'll leave it now. I've made my point!

[fishbiscuits]

oimissus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You render that word meaningless by doing so, however, something

> that won't help those experiencing actual transphobia.

You call trans women "men" and "delusional". You ARE the very embodiment of transphobia.

[oimissus]

No.

You embody those who loathe women who say 'no' to them - you do everything you can to deflect and belittle, while doing precious little to help those you claim to care about. Because it's not about them, is it? It's about us. Women. The women who say NO.

You think women can't see that? You think everyone reading this can't see that? You're wrong. Deluding yourself, one might say.

I have nothing further to say to you, so I won't be responding to any more of your posts.

Bye now.

[snowy]

From looking at that boysvswomen site it appears it?s run by an America right wing Christian anti vaxxer.

[fishbiscuits]

You need to understand that respect and support for both women and transgender people is entirely compatible. You don't have to try to turn a trans ally into an enemy of women. I hope you'll consider that (but doubt it).

Bye for now... until the next anti-trans post..

[oimissus]

snowy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> From looking at that boysvswomen site it appears

> it?s run by an America right wing Christian anti

> vaxxer.

Do you have anything to say about the actual data, or are you just trying to deflect attention from that? It's very transparent. Oh, and a source for that claim would be good too. Thanks.

[tomskip]

I hear you oimissus, although I would agree it is inflammatory and probably unwise of you to refer to the weight lifter as "he" because then you make it too easy for people to shout this is proof you are transphobic.

For myself, I find it is inflammatory to refer to women as "cis" or "genetic women". Horribly offensive. Women and transwomen covers it fine.

The total dismantling of all women's sports is a niche subject hmm? who could ever have imagined.

[fishbiscuits]

tomskip Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For myself, I find it is inflammatory to refer to

> women as "cis" or "genetic women". Horribly

> offensive. Women and transwomen covers it fine.

Was seeking to disambiguate. I was under the impression they were both commonly used terms. No offence intended.

I guess I am OK with women/transwomen as a disambiguation, but very much not OK with calling transitioned trans women "men". I have no doubt that here, offence was very much intended.

> The total dismantling of all women's sports

Complete hyperbole. One competitor (I admit highly controversial, and likely to be biologically advantaged) out of 5000 does not equal "total dismantling". But nevertheless I understand the concern that female athletes have expressed. It is something that, I dare say, we'll need a solution to IF it becomes commonplace.

[snowy]

oimissus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> snowy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > From looking at that boysvswomen site it

> appears

> > it?s run by an America right wing Christian

> anti

> > vaxxer.

>

> Do you have anything to say about the actual data,

> or are you just trying to deflect attention from

> that? It's very transparent. Oh, and a source for

> that claim would be good too. Thanks.

I?m not deflecting. You quoted it as a good source, so I went to look who was behind the source. His twitter feed is illuminating.