How is it "cruel" to point out that "Lorelei" is not and never will be a female? Therefore, Barrett should never compete against actual females as Barrett is a male.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
-
1411
-
Wise Old Man wrote:
RunRagged wrote:
1) If any kids were subjecting to bullying and cruelty, sure I'll denounce it.
I'll also point out that part of the blame for any bullying and cruelty that went on in this case has to go to you and the others who've been pushing policies and practices that are clearly unfair to girls and women - and then slagging off everyone and anyone who raises objections or dares to push back and say "this isn't fair" as mean-spirited, heartless bigots, haters, right wingers, Nazis, imbeciles and so on.
2) I consider myself a "trans inclusive feminist" because my advocacy for, and concern about, female people includes those who have trans, non-binary and other gender identities that put them under the "trans umbrella." The only people excuded from my feminism are males, because feminism is about promoting the rights and interests of female people.
BTW, all males are excluded from my feminism, even those I love including the one I gave birth to, breastfed, toilet trained, taught to drive, nursed through many illnesses, educated, put through college, etc who literally came from my flesh and blood. I don't selectively exclude males identify as trans from feminism - I exclude 'em all.
I don't believe that the people you speak of who hold your views are "trans inclusive feminists." Yes, I think they are misogynists. Women and girls can be misogynists just like "liberal" men can be.
In my opinion, their and your kind of analysis and views aren't feminism - they're genderism, elitism, authoritarianism, male supremacy and silencing of dissent. They/you believe in favoritism for a group of males they/you see as members of a sacred caste and think deserve special treatment - special treatment no other males get, and special treatemnt that comes at the expense of female people.
If your daughter(s), their friends and the women in your life really are so keen to compete in sports against members of the male sex and to share locker rooms, showers, changing rooms, hospital rooms bunk houses, dorm rooms, rape refuges, prison cells etc with every Tom, Dick and Harry who claims to "identify as a girl or woman, I have no problem with them campaigning for the creation of additional mixed-sex sports and spaces.
My problem is with them and you insisting that all girls and all women (the female kind) must give up our hard-won right to female-only sports and spaces because that's what personally suits them, or that's what they say suits them at the present moment - and because it's what you as a man who believes he is wise has decided is best.
1) There was no IF (did you read what Max Englehart said), so why don’t you simply denounce it. People on this thread follow your lead and they think how this all went down was positive.
2) So in summary, you believe that women like Kimberle Crenshaw and Barbara Smith “aren't (about) feminism - they're (about) genderism, elitism, authoritarianism, male supremacy and silencing of dissent.”
That seems way off the mark, comically so.
Oh c'mon, you can't be serious. No one follows my lead on this thread or on any other. People on LRC as in other settings can and do think for themselves.
BTW, the term "intersectional feminism" as coined and orginally set for and explained by Crenshaw had/has to do with the way race and sex are two of the most prominent "axes of oppression" and discrimination that intersect and reinforce one another to make life especially difficult for black women in the US context (and later in a broader context). It originally had nothing at all to do with transgenderism, gender identity ideology, including males in female sports and spaces, or redefining feminism so that it's "inclusive" of males.
Barbara Smith's feminism was/is about how sexism, racism, homophobia , heteronormativity - and other factors known as axes of oppression - intersect, reinforce one another and lend one another strength much like strands and plaits of hair do when they are braided together; like threads and strips of fibre do when they are woven together to make sturdy cloth or rope; or like strands of copper wire when they are wound together to make cords for conducting electrical power and telecommunication signals.
The term "intersectional feminism" has now come to mean a bastardized, bowlderized, eviscerated, hollowed-out, upside down, contradictory, muddled and illogical viewpoint that is basically the opposite of genuine feminism.
Today's "intersectional feminism" not only includes males, it centers them and promotes male interests, male supremacy and the regressive sexism and sex stereotypes that are the heart and foundation of transgednerism and gender identity ideology.
This state of affairs came about because gender ideologues and trans activists stole the term "intersectional feminism," appropriated it for themselves, claimed sole ownership of it, and gave it a whole new meaning entirely of their own making that has turned the term into a buzzword that's empty of coherent meaning. Just like they've done, or tried to do, with "woman," "girl," "lesbian," "vagina," "vulva," "mother" and many other words.
None of this changes the fact that the policies and practices you are promoting are unfair to girls and women, whom you think should be forced to give up hard-won rights to accommodate males you believe are "the most vulnerable and oppressed" people in our society and you've decided deserve special treament at the epxense of females.
You can keep insisting that because a lot of other people including many women - and all the powers-that-be in California - are on board with telling girls and women to budge up and make room for boys and men in our sports and spaces, tough shxt about your rights, then that means it can't be unfair and wrong. But that's just your view. And since you never make any arguments explaining and establishing the merits of your view, you're not gonna convince anyone of its rectitude.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.96 -
RunRagged wrote:
translucent wrote:
Are you going to show the studies you think prove this? Because I know at least one study that anti-trans types like yourself love to use to claim it, but that shows nothing of the sort.
In case you don't and others don't want to read the study I linked to, here's a summary:
Adolescents who identify as transgender are vulnerable to suicidal thoughts and self-harming behaviors. This fact, frequently reported by the news media, is often used as the justification for the rapid provision of "gender-affirming" hormonal and surgical interventions to gender-dysphoric adolescents: “Fifty percent of transgender youth attempt suicide before they are at age 21,” declared the mother of Jazz Jennings, the most famous transgender youth in the English-speaking world.
[But] a closer examination of the risk of suicide among [trans-identifed youth] reveals a more complex picture.
First off, there are wide variations by country, which remain poorly understood. For example, gender-dysphoric youth in The Netherlands attempt suicide at about 1/3 the rate of the UK's gender-dysphoric youth.
Secondly, the estimates collected online from youth themselves tend to be higher than those obtained from more reliable clinic samples. And importantly, the data on suicidal thoughts and behaviors typically does not capture completed suicides, which represents a significant knowledge gap.
A recent study by Dr. Michael Biggs [professor of sociology at Oxford University] fills this gap by calculating the rate of completed suicides among UK's gender-dysphoric youth.
The new study by Dr. Biggs uses the data from the world's largest pediatric gender clinic, the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), to estimate the rates of completed suicides among trans-identifying youth.
The United Kingdom has a comprehensive surveillance system for every death classified as suicide or probable suicide and such deaths by patients—even of those on the waiting list—must be reported.
In the eleven years from 2010 to 2020, four patients under the care of the GIDS committed suicide, equating to 0.03% of the total. This translates into an annualized suicide rate of 13 per 100,000.
For the general population of comparable age (14 to 17 years), the rate was 2.7 per 100,000. Thus, adolescents referred to the GIDS had a significantly higher rate of suicide, 5.5 times greater after adjusting for the clinic’s sex ratio.
However, this greater risk is not necessarily attributable to transgender identity.
Adolescents referred to the GIDS differ in many other ways from their peers of the same age: they are more likely to suffer from depression and to be on the autism spectrum, for example. These conditions increase the risk of suicide.
Another recent study revealed that while trans-identifying adolescents' suicidality (including thoughts and behaviors, but excluding completed suicides) is markedly higher than that found in the general population of youth, it is only somewhat higher than in youth referred to mental health services for non-gender-related concerns.
Much of the knowledge of suicidality in transgender-identifying youth comes from self-reported online surveys. However, survey data cannot be taken at face value. As demonstrated by prior research on the general public and of non-heterosexual youth in particular, when respondents who affirmatively answer a question on attempted suicide are asked follow-up questions, it turns out that many had not taken life-threatening actions.
Moreover, “sexual-minority youths appear more inclined than other adolescents to reply in the affirmative when simplistic suicide attempt research instruments are used” (Savin-Williams, 2001). A recently published article likewise suggests that lesbian, bisexual, and gay youth might be “normalizing suicidality as a way to express distress and cope with life problems” (Canetto et al. 2021).
Now this is really remarkable.
You claimed (post #469) that "Amongst children and adolescents who identify as trans, rates of suicide are actually very low." I challenged you on a different statement, but you went on to cite a study that said in the first lines that trans adolescents under treatment in the UK commit suicide at a rate 5.5 times higher than the general population of comparable age and sex. (By the way, the study that found the famous 41% figure (for lifetime suicide attempts among US transgender children and adolescents) had 14% of children and adolescents overall attempting suicide, as is cited in this study. This supports that the ratio of suicides between the trans and general populations is at least as high as the ratio of suicide attempts, and that young transgender people are not unseriously attempting suicide as a cry for help, or unseriously claiming to have done so, at least no more so than young people in general).
Having put forward this study that bluntly contradicts your own claims, you even posted this whole response that amounts to "yes, trans children are more likely to commit suicide, but that doesn't count because...deflections and excuses".
You even linked to the fringe group that you copy-pasted it from. (Yes, the "over 100" they claim on their "About us" page is fringe for a purported worldwide medical association.)
You've indeed run yourself ragged, I think.
86 -
RunRagged wrote:
translucent wrote:
Are you going to show the studies you think prove this? Because I know at least one study that anti-trans types like yourself love to use to claim it, but that shows nothing of the sort.
Sure I'll show studies if you want. Here's one:
As to you calling me an "anti-trans type" - I'm a pluralist who believes people of all kinds, walks of life, identities etc should be treated fairly and decently. I want everyone - even those very different to me and whose views I strongly disagree with - to be able to exercise their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in safety and security without unjust discrimination, bullying, cruelty or any kind of mistreatment.
But my focus in convos about "trans" and the gender identity movement in general is finding ways for society to be fair to, and accepting of, all whilst not compromising or rolling back the hard-won rights of women and girls (the female kind) that generations of women had to fight tooth and nail for; keeping in place and strengthening protective measures that provide safeguarding for children, girls and women, and other vulnerable people; advancing LGB rights and acceptance; not compromisng anyone's free speech rights; and not being bullied or browbeaten into going along with the unscientific, reality-denying, sexist and misogynistic dogma the gender identity movement is built on and peddles.
BTW, I probably personally know or have known more people who identify as trans, or did in the past, than anyone else on this thread. Which is why I know there is no unanimity amongst them on this and other issues, just as there is diversity of thought amongst "the LGB," Democratic Party voters, Labour (UK) members, lefties, liberals and so on.
Yes, I am calling you anti-trans. I've never seen you be anything but condemnatory toward any specific trans woman, rather than the general platitudes you repeat here, and I've never seen you show any actual support toward any specific trans man, despite your exceptional generosity in accepting them into your feminism from which you exclude all men (post #487).
That was sarcasm, by the way.
I very much doubt your claim to know more trans people than anyone else in the thread, considering I am transgender, and besides the countless trans people I've known online, I've spent significant time in person with probably a couple dozen (one-on-one or in small groups of friends, not anonymous conventions, support groups with limited individual connection, or something like that), and have been a close friend or romantic partner to around six, depending where I draw the line for "close friend" -- certainly at least four. If we were measuring by the last, you wouldn't stand a chance.
If you think I -- or the trans people I've known well, for that matter -- agree unthinkingly with the party line of the loudest trans activists, you've only proven that you haven't read a thing I've written here.
811 -
RunRagged wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
1) There was no IF (did you read what Max Englehart said), so why don’t you simply denounce it. People on this thread follow your lead and they think how this all went down was positive.
2) So in summary, you believe that women like Kimberle Crenshaw and Barbara Smith “aren't (about) feminism - they're (about) genderism, elitism, authoritarianism, male supremacy and silencing of dissent.”
That seems way off the mark, comically so.
Oh c'mon, you can't be serious. No one follows my lead on this thread or on any other. People on LRC as in other settings can and do think for themselves.
BTW, the term "intersectional feminism" as coined and orginally set for and explained by Crenshaw had/has to do with the way race and sex are two of the most prominent "axes of oppression" and discrimination that intersect and reinforce one another to make life especially difficult for black women in the US context (and later in a broader context). It originally had nothing at all to do with transgenderism, gender identity ideology, including males in female sports and spaces, or redefining feminism so that it's "inclusive" of males.
Barbara Smith's feminism was/is about how sexism, racism, homophobia , heteronormativity - and other factors known as axes of oppression - intersect, reinforce one another and lend one another strength much like strands and plaits of hair do when they are braided together; like threads and strips of fibre do when they are woven together to make sturdy cloth or rope; or like strands of copper wire when they are wound together to make cords for conducting electrical power and telecommunication signals.
The term "intersectional feminism" has now come to mean a bastardized, bowlderized, eviscerated, hollowed-out, upside down, contradictory, muddled and illogical viewpoint that is basically the opposite of genuine feminism.
Today's "intersectional feminism" not only includes males, it centers them and promotes male interests, male supremacy and the regressive sexism and sex stereotypes that are the heart and foundation of transgednerism and gender identity ideology.
This state of affairs came about because gender ideologues and trans activists stole the term "intersectional feminism," appropriated it for themselves, claimed sole ownership of it, and gave it a whole new meaning entirely of their own making that has turned the term into a buzzword that's empty of coherent meaning. Just like they've done, or tried to do, with "woman," "girl," "lesbian," "vagina," "vulva," "mother" and many other words.
None of this changes the fact that the policies and practices you are promoting are unfair to girls and women, whom you think should be forced to give up hard-won rights to accommodate males you believe are "the most vulnerable and oppressed" people in our society and you've decided deserve special treament at the epxense of females.
You can keep insisting that because a lot of other people including many women - and all the powers-that-be in California - are on board with telling girls and women to budge up and make room for boys and men in our sports and spaces, tough shxt about your rights, then that means it can't be unfair and wrong. But that's just your view. And since you never make any arguments explaining and establishing the merits of your view, you're not gonna convince anyone of its rectitude.
Yet these very leaders of modern feminism, Smith, Crenshaw and so many others, completely reject your trans exclusionary rhetoric and position. You know this is true. I’ll let them argue why trans inclusion is right and just as they are far more eloquent than me.
610 -
You got your way, they didn’t compete. Move on with your lives.
116 -
coachy wrote:
You got your way, they didn’t compete. Move on with your lives.
The majority of Americans "getting their way" would have nothing to do with these young people making a decision, perhaps under duress, to not compete in a race, which leaves the door wide open for some other XY human to violate the space of XX humans by competing in girls' sports.
"Getting our way" would be that policies are created by the governing bodies of sports so that this isn't even an option, so that the space that was created for XX humans to compete with each other is respected and reserved for them, so that we don't have to go around and around on this time after time.
147 -
Stop calling Lorelei Barrett and Athena Ryan boys... psychologically, they are girls. Give them both the she/her pronouns.
HOWEVER. THAT SAID. The science backs the fact that trans boys and cis girls are physically disadvantaged compared to cis boys and trans girls from puberty on. Anyone that read Lauren Fleshman's book, for instance, will know about the part where she used to always beat everyone, boys and girls alike, and then puberty happened and overnight with no extra effort, there was a cis boy suddenly obliterating her race times.
I wholeheartedly support the addition of the nonbinary category but haven't failed to notice it's usually people with Y chromosomes winning those. The best option? Add 2 more categories, one for trans boys and one for trans girls, in all events for ages 11 and up so that trans boys and cis girls aren't being steamrolled by their counterparts with Y chromosomes.
916 -
geekyrunner wrote:
psychologically, they are girls.
You don't know that, because you are not them and you're not in their heads.
What we all do know though, is that neither one of them are real naturally born girls.
Therefore they don't have the right to compete in events designed and protected for real naturally born girls and woman.
148 -
Yeah, seeing them get all pissy about the nonbinary category is very much telling on themselves as it actually being about transphobia. The ones that don't want trans and cis being scored against each other are perfectly fine with the nonbinary category. (Unsurprisingly, it's often won by someone with a Y chromosome, but it's still a step in the right direction, having a third category with the same prizes, though a fourth and fifth for trans boys/men and trans girls/women, also with the same awards, is needed)
83 -
That ring announcer guy wrote:
55fast wrote:
Typical liberal media blame it on those who know the difference between a male and female.
Looks like we found the solution to the problem. More protests, more signs at meets promoting women's rights, etc. I'm fine with these two not competing and I hope more continue to follow this pattern. Non-violent protest is the order of the day.
Good post. I completely agree with this.
84 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
This quoted post has been removed.
There isn't any "diversity of thought" on this issue: you either favour trans participation in women's sport (on the grounds of "inclusivity") or you don't - because they have an unfair biological advantage.
More assumptive low level troll non thinking.
31 -
This quoted post has been removed.
Fairness and integrity in women's sports matters.
When you lose to someone with an unfair advantage it's frustrating
There is no way to support trans girls competing in women's sports without denigrating women's sports.
116 -
This quoted post has been removed.
When a trans woman takes an opportunity that is intended for an actual woman, why should xx women - why should everyone- NOT be outraged?
This is what it's about. Which has everything to do with women, girls, and their futures.
77 -
This quoted post has been removed.
26 pages later and you still don't get it.
44
5 posts were removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.