The women’s category is a biological category not a pseudoscience social category.
The World Athletics Federation has determined the women’s category is for biological women and transgender women who compete there transition with drugs and surgeries before turning 12.
transgender women who compete there transition with drugs and surgeries before turning 12.
If a child insists on drinking beer they'd be laughed at, and if an adult indulges and hands them a bottle they'd probably be reported to CPS if the right person saw it.
But pumping a child of single digit age full of sex hormones (and/or puberty blocker) before having a series of surgeries doing irrevocable damage to a healthy body is somehow applauded. If "voluntarily" f*cking your entire sh*t up is permissible for pre-pubescent children, then it doesn't make sense that anything is age-restricted.
Join the draft? Yes Drive a car? Yes Medicinal marihuana and other legal drugs? Yes Incur debt? Yes
Do it. You guys are always saying that you’ll do something like this. Do it. If you know you have a sure fire solution to a problem (you don’t, by the way. I am humoring you. Also, there is no problem that even needs a solution in this scenario), then put it into action.
Transwomen are women. Women compete with women. It’s simple. And yet, we’ve got conservatives on this board asking “what is a woman?” And looking up the word in the dictionary to try and understand a very basic fact.
Wrong, transwomen aren't women. They are mentally ill men pretending to be women. Just like Harrison Ford isn't actually Indiana Jones, these men are not women. They do their best to imitate women, and that's fine. That's their choice with what they want to do with their lives. But those of us who are sane don't need to go along with their act.
This is not the current science on gender. Science is starting to realize gender is not binary and is an illusion created by people. You are the gender you feel. Sex and gender are different and it is gender, not sex, that should be used to classify individuals for anything not related to reproduction or specific health related needs based on the body parts they have.
Why have a woman's category any longer? Much more straightforward to have one category that includes males and females and transgenders and nonbinaries, and any other human. Title IX was passed to provide equal opportunities for females but having only one category is the cleanest way to accomplish that.
This is where we should go. Everyone line up and compete in whatever competition it is and the best person wins. Could be a male, could be a female, could be someone nonbinary.
I'd think twice before bringing Hunter Schafer into the convo. Yes, in public statements Schafer made for political and PR purposes as a 17-year-old in 2016, the teenager appeared outwardly confident, happy and "proud to be a trans person."
But last year, Schafer made waves for posting an image of hand-written journal entries on social media which suggested that Schafer has had some doubts about medical "transition."
More worrying, Schafer's writing shows that what Schafer calls a "persistent need for femininity" since toddlerhood and the "femme" gender identity Schafer now embraces have a dark side and some disturbing roots.
The jounal entry starts out with musings about what might have been if Schafer had not started taking exogenous Big Pharma hormone products at such a young age:
Thinking if I could have found beauty in my body had I let it proceed with its natural progression
Then Schafer goes on to say:
The idea of being eaten used to arouse me. Is this misogyny? I think I used to (still do?) internalize misogyny because I thought I wanted to be a woman and saw that men ate women whole, that men dominated. Hence my former and current arousal towards domination and not to mention humiliation.
Did my yearning to be feminine, to be a woman, to escape the prison that is being a man, make me want to be eaten by men so that I could feel like a woman? Was being gay the only answer to this?
I remember not liking gay porn because I could not find the "big vs small" contrast. That even when I was gay I liked straight porn because [gay porn] lacked misogyny/abuse/oppression.
Why did I want/need to be a woman? My gender was so influenced by a need to be used by men. My sexual orientation was not gay, it was not straight, it was an attraction, is an attraction, always to misogyny. Not feeling femme enough w/o being a victim of rape.
I don't know what the purpose of this post is. But it tells more about you (and your echo chamber) than about Hunter.
Meanwhile, I still haven't got your answer on whether someone could be "male" without the SRY gene.
The point is that track and field are using the biological definition of a female for the women’s category, not the social constructivist definition of gender.
The women’s category in track and field is for biological women, not a man diagnosed and treated for gender dysphoria. There is a difference between these two definitions, and denying it is not helping transgender people, who should be accepted for who they are, that is, transgender.
Once the Marxists realized that you can demolish society using just pronouns, it was off to the races.
Says someone who does not understand what "Marxism" is.
You don't understand what Marxism is. Both critical theory and postmodern theories are offshoots of Marxism, and these are precursers to queer theory. In queer theory, instead of the oppressor/oppressed distinction being based on owndershp of the means of production, it's based on whether one is normative or queer. As the formerly queer becomes the new norm, that must be overthrown in a series of continuous revolutions until humans reach a state of polymorphous perversity, where bodies mingle together to feed their own and satisfy others' unrestrained erotic desires.
However, queer theory throws out the materialism stuff, along with the existence of objective reailty in favor of relativism. The most important part about Marixism, however, and the thing that makes it go off the rails is the teleological vision of history in which humans are slowly tranforming the world into a utopia by becoming "socialist man." To achieve this, we must all think the same and subordinate ourselves to the greater good. This requires/justifies the consolidation of power by self-selected intellectual elites who believe that they hold the keys to the kingdom. It never ends well. See: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jonestown, etc.
Why have a woman's category any longer? Much more straightforward to have one category that includes males and females and transgenders and nonbinaries, and any other human. Title IX was passed to provide equal opportunities for females but having only one category is the cleanest way to accomplish that.
This is where we should go. Everyone line up and compete in whatever competition it is and the best person wins. Could be a male, could be a female, could be someone nonbinary.
I hope you're being facetious, but if not, do you realise this plan would erase women from essentially all elite competitions in existence? Or is that the aim? Or if you're suggesting non-sexed 'tiers', do you realise how many, say, 1500m male-only races you would need to run before you reach the tier when the top women start racing z-list men of the same (or more likely sandbagged) quality? It's a preposterous and completely unworkable 'solution'.
You don't understand what Marxism is. Both critical theory and postmodern theories are offshoots of Marxism, and these are precursers to queer theory. In queer theory, instead of the oppressor/oppressed distinction being based on owndershp of the means of production, it's based on whether one is normative or queer. As the formerly queer becomes the new norm, that must be overthrown in a series of continuous revolutions until humans reach a state of polymorphous perversity, where bodies mingle together to feed their own and satisfy others' unrestrained erotic desires.
However, queer theory throws out the materialism stuff, along with the existence of objective reailty in favor of relativism. The most important part about Marixism, however, and the thing that makes it go off the rails is the teleological vision of history in which humans are slowly tranforming the world into a utopia by becoming "socialist man." To achieve this, we must all think the same and subordinate ourselves to the greater good. This requires/justifies the consolidation of power by self-selected intellectual elites who believe that they hold the keys to the kingdom. It never ends well. See: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jonestown, etc.
This is like saying pickle ball is lawn tennis because it started as an offshoot of tennis.
Or how about calling Christianity, Islam, Druze, and Bahai all "Judaism"? Saying something is "Marxism" just because its precursors were offshoots of Marxism is as absurd as saying Islam is Judaism.
Without historical materialism, there is no Marxism. Just like you cannot play "lawn tennis" on a pickle ball court.
You don't understand what Marxism is. Both critical theory and postmodern theories are offshoots of Marxism, and these are precursers to queer theory. In queer theory, instead of the oppressor/oppressed distinction being based on owndershp of the means of production, it's based on whether one is normative or queer. As the formerly queer becomes the new norm, that must be overthrown in a series of continuous revolutions until humans reach a state of polymorphous perversity, where bodies mingle together to feed their own and satisfy others' unrestrained erotic desires.
However, queer theory throws out the materialism stuff, along with the existence of objective reailty in favor of relativism. The most important part about Marixism, however, and the thing that makes it go off the rails is the teleological vision of history in which humans are slowly tranforming the world into a utopia by becoming "socialist man." To achieve this, we must all think the same and subordinate ourselves to the greater good. This requires/justifies the consolidation of power by self-selected intellectual elites who believe that they hold the keys to the kingdom. It never ends well. See: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jonestown, etc.
This is like saying pickle ball is lawn tennis because it started as an offshoot of tennis.
Or how about calling Christianity, Islam, Druze, and Bahai all "Judaism"? Saying something is "Marxism" just because its precursors were offshoots of Marxism is as absurd as saying Islam is Judaism.
Without historical materialism, there is no Marxism. Just like you cannot play "lawn tennis" on a pickle ball court.
This guy gets it.
Also, judging the merits of Marxism based on the actions of Lenin and Pol Pot is like judging the merits of Christianity based on the actions of Hitler and Trump.
However, queer theory throws out the materialism stuff, along with the existence of objective reailty in favor of relativism. The most important part about Marixism, however, and the thing that makes it go off the rails is the teleological vision of history in which humans are slowly tranforming the world into a utopia by becoming "socialist man." To achieve this, we must all think the same and subordinate ourselves to the greater good. This requires/justifies the consolidation of power by self-selected intellectual elites who believe that they hold the keys to the kingdom. It never ends well. See: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jonestown, etc.
And this part is quite ironic, since this is exactly the rightwing cultural warriors are doing.
They claim sex is binary and it is solely determined by gametes. They claim there is no "gender" distinct from sex. Anyone who thinks otherwise is heretic. They try to erase people with DSD. They try to "eradicate" trans people. And they try to consolidate the power in the hands of rightwing organizations who try to ban everything from abortion to same sex marriage along with gender affirming care.