Armstronglivs wrote:
Sex is biological, but gender is political.
^ this is brilliant, simply put. Perfecto!
Armstronglivs wrote:
Sex is biological, but gender is political.
^ this is brilliant, simply put. Perfecto!
This happens regularly now in UK. Soon to be in USA too?
[quote]I was arrested for harassment and malicious communications because I called someone out and misgendered them on Twitter.” ...
“I was arrested in my home by three officers, with my autistic ten-year-old daughter and breastfed 20-month-old son present,” Scottow wrote.
“I was then detained for seven hours in a cell with no sanitary products (which I said I needed) before being interviewed then later released under investigation"/quote]
How did this happen? The transgender person complained. Suddenly, the whipsaw of UK legal sprang into effect. iHayden’s complaints prompted both the police to arrest Scottow and a judge to deliver an injunction against her.
The LGBTQ reality wrote:
This happens regularly now in UK. Soon to be in USA too?
I was arrested for harassment and malicious communications because I called someone out and misgendered them on Twitter.” ...
“I was arrested in my home by three officers, with my autistic ten-year-old daughter and breastfed 20-month-old son present,” Scottow wrote.
“I was then detained for seven hours in a cell with no sanitary products (which I said I needed) before being interviewed then later released under investigation"
How did this happen? The transgender person complained. Suddenly, the whipsaw of UK legal sprang into effect. iHayden’s complaints prompted both the police to arrest Scottow and a judge to deliver an injunction against her.
From October (2018):
Last week, it emerged that Linda Bellos, veteran feminist of the Old Left, faces legal action for having said the wrong thing about transgender people who hit women. This week’s transgender thought-criminal is Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party. Someone who might well be considered impeccably on-message on gender issues is accused of being that most terrible thing, a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, and is being punished accordingly.
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/09/04/whats-current-uk-green-party-co-leader-put-terf-blocker-list/Margaret Nelson is a 74-year-old woman who lives in a village in Suffolk. On Monday morning she was woken by a telephone call. It was an officer from Suffolk police. The officer wanted to speak to Mrs Nelson about her Twitter account and her blog. Mrs Nelson, a former humanist celebrant and one-time local newspaper journalist, enjoys tweeting and writing about a number of issues, including the legal and social distinctions between sex and gender.
‘Gender’s fashionable nonsense. Sex is real. I’ve no reason to feel ashamed of stating the truth. The bloody annoying ones are those who use words like ‘cis’ or ‘terf’ and other BS, and relegate biological women to a ‘subset’. Sorry you believe the mythology.’
Her blog is mainly about death and funeral rituals: Mrs Nelson has officiated at many funerals. One of her blog posts, on 19 January 2018, challenges the statement that ‘transwomen are women’ on the grounds that a person’s proclaimed gender does not change their biological sex.
‘The officer said she wanted to talk to me about some of the things I’d written on Twitter and my blog. She said that some of the things that I’d written could have upset or offended transgender people. So could I please stop writing things like that and perhaps I could remove those posts and tweets?’
‘I asked the officer if she agreed that free speech was important. She said it was. I said that in that case, she’d understand that I wouldn’t be removing the posts or stopping saying the things I think. She accepted that and that was the end of the conversation.’
Mrs Nelson says the that officer made no suggestion that anything she had done was illegal. She says the officer gave no reason for the call.
Later, the police followed-up: ‘Hi Margaret, we had a number of people contact us on social media about the comments made online. A follow-up call was made for no other reason than to raise awareness of the complaints.
Consider those words: a sworn officer of the law took the time and trouble to call an utterly law-abiding woman to ask her to stop saying things that might cause offence ‘for no other reason than to raise awareness of the complaints’.
As for Mrs Nelson, you might be wondering how a 74-year-old woman was left feeling following a call from the police urging her to change her ways, keep quiet and stop upsetting people. You might wonder if she was shaken or upset. After all, dealing with the police can be a little unnerving. NOT! ‘I’m not going to keep quiet just because some people might get a bit upset. I’m 74. I don’t give a fu*ck any more.’
Free speech is only free for those who get to decide who has it.
Largely, this whole thread is a bunch of spin, bias, and even virtue signalling. But that's probably what it's OP wanted.
https://medium.com/@Antonia_Lee/transgender-sport-is-it-ilhan-omar-and-not-usa-powerlifting-who-is-discriminatory-and-4f97291f44aDr Antonia Lee wrote:
"I have read much of the relevant literature. I also have a background in elite sport, science and medicine. I have no hesitation in saying that this complex and often emotional issue really doesn’t need any more people — however well-intentioned — with no apparent knowledge of the field, and no relevant, contextual experience or expertise, wading in with what could be construed by some as political spin, unhelpful bias or even cynical virtue signalling."
Slanted thigh bones wrote:
Largely, this whole thread is a bunch of spin, bias, and even virtue signalling. But that's probably what it's OP wanted.
https://medium.com/@Antonia_Lee/transgender-sport-is-it-ilhan-omar-and-not-usa-powerlifting-who-is-discriminatory-and-4f97291f44aDr Antonia Lee wrote:
"I have read much of the relevant literature. I also have a background in elite sport, science and medicine. I have no hesitation in saying that this complex and often emotional issue really doesn’t need any more people — however well-intentioned — with no apparent knowledge of the field, and no relevant, contextual experience or expertise, wading in with what could be construed by some as political spin, unhelpful bias or even cynical virtue signalling."
A long-winded form of virtue-signalling.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
sub sub elite local hobby jogger wrote:
This is not true at all for a not insignificant percentage of the population and you can easily find information that disproves your claim if you actually were interested in knowing the details.
There is no evidence that disproves the statement “you are born either male or female.” There is not a signifanct number of people born with male and female reproductive organs. Unless you are referring to personal opinions of those who believe geneder is a choice (this includes anyone who is not a scientist or medical practitioner). Those are opinions, not evidence.
Regarding the thread, I think it’s a great policy. It’s very fair and reasonable.
The poster who wrote "There is a significant number of people born with male and female reproductive organs", do you think they are referring to Turners or Klinefelter's Syndrome? These are the conditions where XXY or XYY are present, and also convey rather a high form of disability, certainly ruling out competitive sport other than in specific disability sport.
As for the rest, I think the poster may be referring to males who are born with a greater or lesser degree of 5 Alpha Reductase Deficiency Syndrome, which means that the foetus is insensitive to testosterone in the womb and is born with undeveloped primary sexual characteristics. Such children are then frequently operated on so as be able to live as females, when they are in fact, male. The other possibility with 5 Alpha Reductase Deficiency Syndrome is that the child then either is or is not able to develop second secondary male sexual characteristics.
None of this is exactly secret, and I would have thought anyone interested enough in the subject so as to make outlandish statements such as the one I quoted above would have researched a little bit of basic human biology, rather than perpetuating nonsense.
Real Science wrote:
https://twitter.com/IndyaMoore/status/1097269840165904384
I wonder if she has a male vagina.
Y chromosome? check "Yes" or "No" wrote:
A simple check box on the birth certificate will solve this problem:
Check either "Yes" or "No"
Does this child have a Y Chromosome? Yes / No
Sporting events can then be divided into two groups: the "Y" group and the "No Y" group.
No need to discuss hormones, therapy, etc., etc.
Yep.
It’s that simple. And relatively easy to test for.
Karma Police wrote:
Y chromosome? check "Yes" or "No" wrote:
A simple check box on the birth certificate will solve this problem:
Check either "Yes" or "No"
Does this child have a Y Chromosome? Yes / No
Sporting events can then be divided into two groups: the "Y" group and the "No Y" group.
No need to discuss hormones, therapy, etc., etc.
Yep.
It’s that simple. And relatively easy to test for.
I would agree. But where do you put biological women that are/have transitioned to men? The chromosome rule would put them in the women's race. But the T would count as a PED and disqualify them. So where do they go?
This is good, educational conversation for people such as myself who don't think of these topics. Discussion is useful to exercise avenues of thought that would otherwise come down to a knee-jerk, uninformed and very much unintended response.
From what I have read above, one thought would be to have 5 sexes so that athletes could pick the competitive landscape where they best fit. There are two hurdles to that:
1) Olympic committees across the globe may then pressure athletes to falsely identify just to fill in spots that would otherwise go unfilled. Those athletes would later come back with claims they may have been coerced to falsely self-identify.
2) There would be sports/teams such as the US Women Soccer team whose dominance would be negatively impacted if not entirely erased.
3) This debate is affecting biological women more than men. The disappointment on the faces of biological women at the finish line is evident. They are affected to a degree I cannot claim to understand but still wonder if at some level that would not begin to function as a deterrent for biological women to enter the sport.
Touche wrote:
https://twitter.com/clafleck/status/1100830551051853828Real Science wrote:
https://twitter.com/IndyaMoore/status/1097269840165904384
So male and female are merely figments of our imagination. Yet you have to wonder why almost the entirety of nature is about males contesting the right to mate with females. They, too, must be deluded.