10 Things You Should Known About Concerned Women For America can be summed up in four words: They are fucked up
Sure it is. Do transwomen become shorter? Do their hearts shrink? Hands? Does their pelvis change? The male pelvis is more narrow making their legs to be more vertical aiding in speed. The male pelvis is better suited for childbirth. Does muscle memory forget? That’s a real thing:
Has the IOC changed the levels of testosterone they allowed in 2015? A professor in physiology says the limit allowed in 2015 isn’t fair:
Do hemoglobin levels become equal? If not, that would be a huge advantage. Whatever does change to equal, a complete reformatting of the body doesn’t happen.
God, I’m fucking gross!
Gregory competed with the 100% Raw Powerlifting Federation. The IOC has nothing to do with it.
There’s nothing transphobic about it. And it’s not about her being a lesser athlete; it’s about her being a greater one.
Agreed, that’s how we do it. That’s two criteria.
Whoops.
So if I say I am a woman I can now compete as a woman? Just like that? What does feeling like a woman or being a woman actually mean at that point?
Look, if we are going to have discriminatory realms such as sport then we need actual definitions. What’s your definition of a woman?
Cite?
I found the following:
Why this matters:
Go back and reread Filbert’s post. Why yes, Caitlyn Jenner is a phenomenally privileged person! I don’t know why that matters. She’s a massive outlier in almost every way. And for most of her life, yeah, she didn’t face misogyny. Does she face it now? Almost certainly, in the way you may expect any old rich white woman to face misogyny.
No, they fucking can’t, any more than biological females could just transition in the other direction. (It’s a lot easier to pass for male as a transman than it is to pass for female as a transwoman.) Gender doesn’t work like that. Asking a transwoman to go back to living as a man is like asking a ciswoman to get on medication and sew their vagina shut to pass better as a man. It’s fucking gruesome, dude, and if you don’t get that, you might wanna spend a little time actually talking to trans people.
What is the purpose of these scholarships? To help adjust for the biases in society that lead to women being underrepresented in these programs. Transwomen are women and suffer from misogyny (they fucking do, spend some time talking to literally any of them) in addition to transmisogyny.
The only way to argue that this is a distinction worth making is to argue that transwomen are not women or to argue that transwomen do not face misogyny. Neither position is even remotely tenable.
Oh come on. It’s piss-easy to say “my grandmother was Cherokee” and costs little to nothing. Living your life as the opposite gender? Would you do that to get into college, knowing you had to keep it up, and take hormones, and face constant threats of violence from bigoted fucksticks who took this kind of argument and ran with it? :mad:
…Look, I’m sorry, but this whole thing is really dumb. How about, if this ever actually becomes a problem, we address it then? Right now, people aren’t “pretending to be women” to get into colleges, or jobs, or sports teams, or locker rooms, or lesbians’ pants (literally a TERF talking point). Those are lies transphobes make up, not things that actually happen. Because right now, what you’re doing is perpetuating injustice and prejudice because you’re worried that maybe if we don’t, there will be injustice. And that’s fucked up.
Or, to put it another way…
Man, if only there was a term for “irrational fear of trans people”. :rolleyes:
Great! Has this ever happened? Is there any reason to believe this could happen?
Christ, dude, listen to yourself! This isn’t “something that could realistically happen”. This is the plot to a shitty Adam Sandler/Tyler Perry crossover that not even Netflix would fund. It’s embarrassing. But it’s only a little more far-fetched than some of the other things you and others keep bringing up.
But that’s the basis of all this stuff. Transwomen aren’t dominating women’s sports… But if we let them keep competing they might do okay, so we’d better ban them from sports. Transwomen aren’t assaulting women in bathrooms… But if we keep letting them into women’s bathrooms they might, so we’d better ban them from bathrooms. Transwomen aren’t… checks notes… being used en masse to get around equal rights amendments (jesus christ dude what the hell)… But if we let them exist, they might do this or that or the other thing. And sure, we could address it if and when it becomes a problem, but why wait for that to happen? Trans people are icky and shouldn’t exist anyways.
If you accept this kind of nonsense moon logic, there is no discrimination or bigotry against trans people you can’t justify by appealing to what might happen if you don’t.
Not in my understanding. In my understanding, transitioning is a very involved process (though many parts of it can vary) and involves far more than simply saying that you are a woman.
I certainly don’t know; I’m not a woman.
I don’t see why this is necessary. There are plenty of xx, female-body-having women who can’t compete in women’s sports for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with their bodies or even their abilities (they broke rules, for example) – they are still women. The question of who should be allowed to compete in women’s sports is a legitimate question, but far more complicated than “what is the definition of a woman”.
Not the same thing. Same-sex marriage doesn’t impact people who aren’t involved in it. Recognizing transwomen as women in all circumstances impact, or at least is alleged to impact cis women wrt to issues that are normally considered legitimate concerns for them, hence harm the many for the exclusive benefit of the few.
It is currently very widely accepted that women have a right not to share their locker rooms with men, regardless of what you think of it, so there’s a need to define who qualifies as either. Defining “I don’t want men parading naked in my locker room” as meaning “I don’t want people with a dick parading naked in my locker room” or rejecting the idea that someone is allowed to enter the locker room just because he says he should, or saying that 99 women shouldn’t feel distressed so that 1 will feel good aren’t some absurd and outrageous stances.
Especially if you consider that if there’s no objective reason to feel distressed because a transwoman is present in a locker room, there’s in fact no objective reason to feel distressed because a man is present in a locker room, either. The reason why women feel they should be able to avoid such a situation are cultural and subjective, and I doubt that most would be able to clearly enunciate what the issue is exactly, or would agree with each other if they could. “I don’t trust people with a dick to enter a women locker room for genuinely innocent reasons, and I have legitimate reasons to feel this way” would be a position enthusiastically supported by yourself if it didn’t impact another category you also support.
Just because you feel that the woman writing the article shouldn’t be disturbed if the dick owner exposing his parts self-identify as a woman, and that the risk that a cis man will pretend to self-identify as a woman just so that he’ll be able to enter the women locker room is close to inexistant doesn’t mean that this woman should feel the same way and analyze the risk the way you do.
Not the same thing at all. “Human” can be objectively defined on the basis of purely biological factors. “Black” or “Jew” cannot be. “Woman” can’t be objectively defined in this way, or rather, if it were, you would reject this definition.
Definitely. But who made you king (or rather mind controller) to decide that this woman should stop feeling disturbed or threatened by the presence of a naked dick owner in her locker room as soon as this person says “I identify as a woman” and to dismiss her concerns that the real reason why this person is there and says so might be to check up undressed underage girls and expose himself without consequences?
We can also look at male and female records not including trans athletes and see if we can find how non-similar strength difference are. There’s a larger pool of records to wade through. Of course, that won’t be the proof some are looking for.
Here are links to some raw powerlifting records. The first for men, the second for women.
If we look at the totals (squats, benches and deadlifts combined) we see that women NEVER beat the men at comparable body weight.
https://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/american
https://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/women-american
We can look up specific years and women NEVER come close to beating men at totals at comparable body weight, let alone beat them. Is that evidence that Gregory had an advantage as a trans? Hell yeah it is!
Neither does the existence of trans people.
Same sex marriage was “alleged” to impact other people, and it didn’t. Recognizing the existence of trans people does not impact others any more than SSM.
People are free to go into, and leave, any locker rooms they want. They can find private locker rooms if that’s what they prefer. They can change at home. Or they can go into a stall in the locker room. If someone attacks them, or behaves lewdly around them, then that’s against the law and can be prosecuted regardless of gender identity.
If someone feels distress, that’s a feeling that people sometimes have. I have little doubt that some white people felt distressed when they first had to share bathrooms and locker rooms with black people. Some probably still do. That’s part of life – sometimes you will feel distress. It’s not violating anyone’s rights. But preventing trans people from using locker rooms would be violating their rights to accommodation and services. Forcing them to use the wrong locker room would help no one – the other locker room users are just as likely to be anti-trans bigots as the first.
If you want to argue against segregated-gender locker rooms and bathrooms, feel free. I don’t feel strongly that they need to remain, but others might. As long as they exist, trans people should be allowed to use them just like cis people do.
Here you go again, deliberately (and hatefully) misgendering. There’s no reason at all for it. You’re choosing to say this hateful thing, for no reason at all.
Where did you get the impression that I’m king? I’m asserting my opinion. It’s okay to assert one’s opinion, even if they disagree. It’s okay to criticize other opinions.
I believe lewd behavior should be sanctioned and prosecuted, and this has nothing to do with whether trans people should be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms.
Back to the OP: Can you explain why you thought these two questionable groups were representative of either the liberal or conservative movements, Velocity?
That might be true of this particular group I know nothing about, but stating that all TERFs are reactionaries bankrolled by conservative groups is utterly false.
The debate about trans inclusion among feminist activists isn’t anything new, it has been around for as long as I can remember (and I’m not a spring child anymore) and even before, and didn’t wait for the alleged funding by conservative groups.
Whether you sincerely believe it to be true or not, this is just baseless accusations to avoid facing the fact that genuine feminists, and in fact especially the most ardent feminists, haven’t always been supportive of transpeople rights, and still aren’t.
You seem to put a lot of stock in what the IOC claims, so why does it take you being charitable to think Gregory should have waited the two years? How long do you think one should wait when competing in a strength event?
Terfs have certainly been around for a while - they’re pretty strongly associated with second wave feminism - but visible or influential? I can’t speak for what its like in France, but Terfs find it very hard to find a platform in leftist circles in the US, and are almost totally excluded from queer circles. One of the shitbags mentioned in the OP’s link says this expressly: they "
Feminists don’t oppress other women. These people are not feminists.
And you are wildly underestimating how strongly these women are motivated by bigotry against trans people.
WoLF is a hate group. They exist specifically to advocate for discrimination against transwomen. And they’re almost entirely funded by the Heritage Foundation. This isn’t a genuine feminist movement. It’s astroturf.
I trying to figure out what part of this is A) something you think I don’t already know, and B) is remotely exculpatory? Yes, they’re bigots. You have accurately explained the nature of their bigotry. And?
This is like saying, “A racist is someone who treats people like shit because of their race,” and having someone well-actually with, “Racists don’t think blacks are people at all, so your description of them is incorrect.”
Feminists support women’s rights. Transwomen are women. Terfs actively work to undercut transwomen’s rights. They slander and libel them. They sometime physically attack them. They’re bigots, full stop.
Bigotry is often couched in terms of personal safety. I don’t cut an excuse to white feminists who use personal safety as an excuse to discriminate against blacks. Why should I cut cis feminists an excuse when they discriminate against trans people for the same bullshit reason?
Treatment of transwomen is, in fact, directly related to the treatment of women. You can dismiss this as a “article of faith” if you want, but then, “women should be treated the same as men,” is also an article of faith. And let’s be clear, because you muddy the waters on this quite a bit: feminism, radical feminism, and trans-exclusionary radical feminism are not the same thing. I know lots of radical feminists. Several of them are transwomen. None of them are bigots. Radical feminist != Terf. The latter is a small subset of the former, which is itself a small subset of feminism in general.
Where did I say they were insincere about other feminist-related issues? I’m sure they’re honest when they complain about the gender pay gap. I’m sure they’re honest when they worry about rates of sexual assault. But I know they’re not being honest when they slander transwomen, impute sinister motives to them, attack them in public, and ally with the absolute worst elements in society - elements that are adamantly opposed to literally every other part of their agenda - because their hate isn’t getting any traction in mainstream liberal circles.
Terfs go far, far, faaaaar beyond “recognition of biology.” “Transwomen aren’t women because chromosomes,” is a stupid argument, but that’s not where Terfs stop. Terfs routinely claim that transwomen are lying about their status for the express purpose of committing sexual assault against women. They view the transgender rights movement as a deliberate Trojan horse, engineered by men as a whole, to undermine and destroy women’s equality as a concept. They deliberately conflate support for transgender rights as hostility to the concept of feminism as a whole. They go way beyond, “We have a difference of definition,” and into actively lying about the actions and motives of a small and heavily disadvantaged minority.
They’re bigots, by absolutely any measure.
The disparity between the treatment, by terfs, of transwomen and transmen is also illustrative. A transwoman is a man who is dishonestly pretending to be a woman for nefarious purposes. A transman, on the other hand, is a poor woman who has been tricked and brainwashed by the patriarchal transgender rights movement into denying her real identity and mutilating their bodies. The existence of transmen is used as more evidence of perfidy of transwomen - another example of men oppressing women.
Unsurprisingly, transmen don’t have much more love for Terfs than transwomen.
Nobody is arguing here that trans people don’t exist. People are arguing that being trans doesn’t necessarily allow you to be considered a woman in all circumstances.
As far as I’m concerned, the problem would be nicely solved by making all locker rooms and such unisex and saying to whoever is unhappy about it to go pound sand. But society at large, including both conservatives and progressives, agrees that women have a right to and even a need for unisex locker rooms. Hence the need to decide who is a woman and who isn’t.
And this statement equally applies to transwomen. Feeling distressed because you’re refused access to women locker rooms is also part of life. Plenty of people are unhappy because they can’t, for any number of reasons, do something they would really want to do, like participating in a sporting event. Cis women unhappy about or feeling threatened by sharing locker rooms with preop transwomen can perfectly change at home. Transwomen unhappy about or feeling threatened by not being allowed into women locker rooms can also change at home. You have decided that the concerns of transwomen absolutely trump the generally accepted concerns of cis women, but you stating so doesn’t make it objectively true. Especially since, once again, it amounts to state that the subjective distress/fear/whatever of the few trumps the equally subjective distress/fear/whatever of the many.
If you accept that the concern of women wrt men entering locker rooms is legitimate, how can you decide for them what exactly they perceive as a problem and who exactly they perceive as a man? If I enter a women locker room and begin to undress, how is this woman supposed to determine whether or not I actually feel I’m a woman? Why wouldn’t this be a valid concern? I in fact suspect that you would even reject the idea that she has any right to question my presence there, like saying “what the fuck are you doing here?” and expect an answer. At which point any man can indeed enter the women locker room and check up the undressed underage girl, as the author of the article fears.
So, I should use “she” even when discussing the case of a man pretending to be a woman in order to enter the women locker room? A person claiming to self-identify as a woman should still be called “she” even if the claim is false and advanced for nefarious reasons?
Or is that accusation a way to distract attention and avoid to answer the question of why the woman should be disturbed only by what you feel she should be disturbed by, and accept your assessment of the risks rather than her own?
But even if we assume so, how would you even define who can be legitimately be considered a trans person? Why would you assume that anybody self-identifying as a woman would do so, not only sincerely, but for clear, real, serious, lasting reasons? Why would a somewhat genderfluid person, for instance, who feels rather womanish today be prevented from using the women locker room? What about a transvestite who wants to feel more like a woman today? What about a man who wants to have a “woman experience”? On what basis could the line be drawn? And how anybody could determine that a specific person claim falls on this side of the line or on the other?
Once again, if you want women only locker rooms, you need a definition, and I don’t see how where you personally, or that transwoman in particular, want to draw the line is anymore valid than any other. I dont see why “I don’t want anyone with a dick” is anymore or any less valid than “I don’t want anyone who feels he’s a man”, especially since while the first can be determined by an observer, the second can’t.
I don’t think they’re actively lying. I think they sincerely believe it to be true.