the truth. wrote:
Wokeness is a religion.
You're part of the problem. You think it's a political issue. It's not. It's a fairness issue.
Men competing against women is unfair.
-
42
-
Really now wrote:
The solution shouldn't fall upon the victims. The governing bodies of these sports need to learn to use the word NO.
I agree it is up to the governing bodies, but the word shouldn't be "no", the word should be "if".
For example, if the athlete has a clear advantage because of years of testosterone and other male hormones producing muscle gain, the governing body should be able to say that person does not belong in the women's division.
However, if the athlete has spent many years without the advantage of those hormones and doesn't display a physical advantage, they may be allowed to compete.
Many of the examples that are talked about here do seem to indicate an unfair advantage gained by some of the athletes, so I think they should either be in a separate category or can compete in the men's division.
If the governing body sets some sensible rules, it would solve a lot of the problems we see now.
34 -
Jeff Albertson wrote:
Sponsors don’t care about trans athletes competing. The public doesn’t care about trans athletes competing. A very vocal, small minority of bigoted Q-anon followers make a fuss about it, but this is a complete non-issue.
Jeff, what was your female birthname before you converted to a fake male?
12 -
runn wrote:
Kokinho wrote:
Yes they do. Every normie thinks it's ridiculous.
And to the boomers who haven't heard of skimo: it's a rapidly growing sport which has been added to the Olypmics.
Seriously- the general public HATES the trans athlete thing and they have NO CLUE. I got into it with a group of people who thought that Caster Semenya has a sex change.
They're clueless and always offer an opinion somewhere along the lines of:
If God made you a man then you're man.
This isn't true. You made this up. You couldn't find a group of people that knows who Caster Semenya is, let alone make the ridiculous statements that you've attributed to them.
The truth is. There are many people that find it unfair to the biological women that are competing. They're being deprived of fair competition. That's what it boils down to.
42 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
wejo wrote:
So then I guess I will be forced to adjust and fall back on the term "biological male" and "biological female."
But I think that may not be good enough for many of the strongest transgender advocates or if I want to use a religious term "believers".
The preferred terms among trans activists are AMAB (assigned male at birth) and AFAB (assigned female at birth). You don't have to use those terms, but it might be good to know that those terms exist. (Or "natal male" and "natal female" which are less ideological terms.)
But here is the question. What's wrong with calling trans women just that. trans women? It is clear that we are not referring to cis women. Isn't that enough for the purpose of clarity?
If I say "trans women should not be allowed to compete against cis women in elite sports", isn't that clear enough?
Bifurcating the term women doesn't accomplish your goal.
Hot dogs and sled dogs aren't the same thing either.
22 -
Really now wrote:
runn wrote:
Seriously- the general public HATES the trans athlete thing and they have NO CLUE. I got into it with a group of people who thought that Caster Semenya has a sex change.
They're clueless and always offer an opinion somewhere along the lines of:
If God made you a man then you're man.
This isn't true. You made this up. You couldn't find a group of people that knows who Caster Semenya is, let alone make the ridiculous statements that you've attributed to them.
The truth is. There are many people that find it unfair to the biological women that are competing. They're being deprived of fair competition. That's what it boils down to.
Many clueless people think anyone born without a penis is a "biological woman."
If they are shown a film clip of Semenya, they assume she is not a woman because she "does not look like a woman."
They don't realize those two are contradictory. And they don't care. But they still do have an opinion.
16 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Really now wrote:
This isn't true. You made this up. You couldn't find a group of people that knows who Caster Semenya is, let alone make the ridiculous statements that you've attributed to them.
The truth is. There are many people that find it unfair to the biological women that are competing. They're being deprived of fair competition. That's what it boils down to.
Many clueless people think anyone born without a penis is a "biological woman."
If they are shown a film clip of Semenya, they assume she is not a woman because she "does not look like a woman."
They don't realize those two are contradictory. And they don't care. But they still do have an opinion.
Caster Semenya isn't the issue here. However she gets coopted by the trans community in order to argue in favor of allowing biological male an opportunity to compete against biological females.
The truth of the matter is that Caster's situation is not the same as the trans person referred to in the beginning of this thread. It seems the trans community is more confused about Caster than everyone else. Bringing her up is irrelevant.11 -
RunRagged wrote:
Actually, there are several areas other than sports in which conflicts have arisen, and will arise, insofar as legal efforts to protect different groups of people from discrimination based on sex and gender are concerned.
Prisons, for example.
As I am sure you know, in many states in the US, adult male convicts are now placed in either men's or women's prisons based on their claimed gender identities. This hasn't worked out well for the female convicts these males are locked in with. Quite a few of the male convicts placed in women's facilities have raped, assaulted, menaced, intimidated and sexually pursued female inmates. In New Jersey, one male murderer impregnated two female inmates at the Edna Mahan women's prison pretty soon after arriving there. In Ilinois, the first male inmate transferred to a female prison based on gender identity claims was another murderer - and on the first day "she" was allowed in with the general pop, "she" raped a female inmate and is accused of raping a second female prisoner later on.
So whose rights come first here? The rights of male inmates to serve their time behind bars in female prisons if they say they "identify as" and "feel like" women themselves? Or the rights of female inmates not to be subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment of being locked up behind bars with male criminals who are twice their size and strength - and many of whom so far have been brutal murderers, rapists, child molesters and serial killers of women?
Whatever crimes some female inmates have committed, how is it constitutional, just and humane to lock women in cages with male convicts based on the males' claims about their self-perceptions and identities?
Other areas of conflict are communal toilets, changing rooms, showers, spas, dorm and bunk rooms, hospital wards, nursing home accommodations, shelters, rape refuges, in-home health care, barracks, medical services and research, support groups, crime statistics, etc.
I believe people of both sexes should be protected against discrimination based on our sex, sexual orientation, and gender, gender expression and gender identity (if we have one). But these are very thorny areas of law that are as-yet unsettled - and it's naive and a grave mistake to pretend that there aren't conflicts all over the place between rights and protections based on sex and rights and protections based on gender, gender identity and expression.
But generally speaking, I think it would be a huge step backwards if women's and girls's sports, women's locker rooms and loos, etc, and women's rights were redefined as sports, spaces and rights for "feminine" people rather than for female people.
I’ve attached a rather long and scholarly article on how the courts are likely to wrestle with these problems. The author is fundamentally of the mind that it’s not constitutional for domestic violence shelters to bar trans women, but the presentation is very balanced overall and she lays out in great detail the legal arguments that support barring trans women as well. I think it’s worth the time to read it. I learned a lot.
In reading this, it becomes evident that laws barring trans women from athletic competition are going to have a much harder time passing muster under constitutional review. Yes, there is a potential safety argument to be made for shelters and prisons, but not for most sports, certainly not running. Also, when a state passes a law when there is a lone trans athlete impacted, or very few, this violates the animus principle set forth by Obergefell. There is really no state interest in banning something so rare and of such limited real world impact and so the motivation is considered to be legal “animus” and these laws violates the equal protection clause. For example, the case I referenced above is a West VA law banning trans girls from girls middle school and HS sports, yet across the entire state there is just one 12 year old trying to compete.
“Because the more expansive view of animus problematizes laws that have stigmatizing effects on politically unpopular groups, even if passed in good faith, the Court will not likely consider transexclusionary- policies to be considered constitutional under this framework.”
10 -
the truth. wrote:
Wokeness is a religion.
Extreme left-wing ideology forced down the throats of parents. Just say no.
22 -
No such thing as transgenderism...Science says that people are born male or female, just like in nature...If you have a doubt, take a DNA test.
22 -
Semenya has XY chromosomes. I actually feel sympathy for her, but she is a biolgical male who is intersex that developed as female
30 -
However, there should be a complete ban on all other transgenders
11 -
If the abstract or summary is any indication, that "long and scholarly article" you linked to is a lot of hooey. The author starts out making claims that are totally false. It's utter rubbish that misrepresents women's history and experiences for the purpose of promoting the male intrusivist, male supremacist agenda of the gender identity movement that you're always pushing so hard for. Sheesh.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.52 -
Fake Women wrote:
the truth. wrote:
Wokeness is a religion.
Extreme left-wing ideology forced down the throats of parents. Just say no.
I've actually met Peggy Flanagan and she is an actual woman, but my God does that picture make her look trans. The article is anti-trans so I wouldn't put it past them to have intentionally used such a picture.
11 -
equity wrote:
Semenya has XY chromosomes. I actually feel sympathy for her, but she is a biolgical male who is intersex that developed as female
Semenya did not "develop as female." Semenya has an enzyme deficiency, 5-ARD, that affects the sex development of males, and only males, in utero. 5-ARD causes male babies to be born with a minuscule, malformed or missing penis.
Semenya most likely is the biological father of the two children Semenya's wife has given birth to since 2019.
If you want to find out more, there are other LRC threads about Semenya starting from mid-2019 to check out. Or start a new thread - I'll fill you in more there.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.42 -
People can identify with whatever they want to be. However, if one is born a biological male (XY) then that is simply a scientific fact. To say otherwise would be a lie. It can't be changed.
I consider myself a Liberal Democrat who believes in Science. It's very ironic to me that many of these Left-Wing Liberals "believe in Science" but then bend the other way when it comes to saying stuff like "A Transgender Women is a Women!" No, just because you feel a certain way does not mean we ignore scientific facts and definitions!
52 -
RunRagged wrote:
If the abstract or summary is any indication, that "long and scholarly article" you linked to is a lot of hooey. The author starts out making claims that are totally false. It's utter rubbish that misrepresents women's history and experiences for the purpose of promoting the male intrusivist, male supremacist agenda of the gender identity movement that you're always pushing so hard for. Sheesh.
Why don’t you read it rather than making a snap judgement. Skip all the feminist stuff if you’d like and read the legal briefing. There’s plenty in there you will agree with, but it lays out the legal landscape in great detail and is pretty even handed. If you are so sure you know all the legal arguments, then I guess you can not bother, but I’m pretty sure you don’t. Does it drive you nuts that a female legal scholar embraces “male supremacist” views?
23 -
Wise Old Man wrote:
RunRagged wrote:
If the abstract or summary is any indication, that "long and scholarly article" you linked to is a lot of hooey. The author starts out making claims that are totally false. It's utter rubbish that misrepresents women's history and experiences for the purpose of promoting the male intrusivist, male supremacist agenda of the gender identity movement that you're always pushing so hard for. Sheesh.
Why don’t you read it rather than making a snap judgement. Skip all the feminist stuff if you’d like and read the legal briefing. There’s plenty in there you will agree with, but it lays out the legal landscape in great detail and is pretty even handed. If you are so sure you know all the legal arguments, then I guess you can not bother, but I’m pretty sure you don’t. Does it drive you nuts that a female legal scholar embraces “male supremacist” views?
No, doesn't drive me nuts. Not at all. Fact is, lots of women embrace and promote male supremacist views. That's always been the case, and its probably never been more so than now.
Male supremacist views are common, indeed the norm, amongst young, educated so-called "liberal feminist" women in the US today. That's why so many of them promote gender identity ideology and hold women like me and JK Rowling in contempt.
43 -
didgeridingo wrote:
I've actually met Peggy Flanagan and she is an actual woman, but my God does that picture make her look trans. The article is anti-trans so I wouldn't put it past them to have intentionally used such a picture.
I disagree. The article is actually pro-parent, not anti-trans. Left-wing extremists are turning our society into a cesspool with lewd, drag-queen story shows for kids that promote paraphilias like transgenderism. It's no wonder there's an explosion of children with gender dysphoria. Wacko Liberals are infesting our public school systems, brainwashing future generations. Children are being taught that they're homophobic if they complain about biological boys competing against girls in sports. And now they want to give children easy access to irreversible, life-changing surgeries and hormone blockers. It's ridiculous. As an adult, you can do what you want with your body. Until then, leave childrearing to the parents, not the government.
42 -
Some things will take a legit female, here is one of those.
12
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.