No; no league limits women’s playing time, not one that I’ve ever been in.
That post quoting Rickjay was in reply to you, Discourse seems to have chopped off the first quote.
“Genuinely trans” does not make Ivy actually a woman. Veronica Ivy is an adult male. A man.
I don’t particularly care what Veronica Ivy’s gender is. Gender is largely sexism and stereotypes. It’s your sex that makes you a man or a woman.
I already cited you misgendering. You needn’t continue to reinforce the example. In fact, I’d rather you didn’t.
“In the approved way” in this case means “without deliberately referring to other people in terms they consider disrespectful”. Yes, I think that’s a good idea if you want other people to sympathize with your outrage.
You certainly don’t come across as making a good-faith argument when you insist on referring to transgender girls as “biological males” instead of “transgender girls”.
Saying “transgender girls” in this context is just as accurate as saying “biological males”, and it’s much more courteous and respectful. (In fact, it’s far more accurate and specific, because of course most biological males are not transgender girls.) We all know that transgender girls have male biological sex, and that that is the issue in discussing competition between cisgender and transgender girls in sports. So you aren’t sacrificing any accuracy at all by using the term “transgender girls” here.
Nope, as I said, this wording seems to be far more about annoying transgender people by unnecessarily referring to them by terms they don’t like than about making a good-faith argument for fair competition in girls’ sports. And I’m not interested in facilitating gratuitous taunting. If you want me to discuss the substantive issues with you—and I’ve already made it quite clear in my latest post that I do consider the substantive issues, when respectfully expressed, to be well worthy of consideration and discussion—then you can refer to transgender female athletes by the phrase “transgender female athletes” and similarly respectful terms.
Hateful, demeaning and cruel? That’s all you picked up from 2100 + posts? You didn’t read anything that supported and accepted people with gender dysphoria? Oh then it must be demeaning hateful and cruel to you when these same people also support the rights of women to define themselves and their issues based on their biological reality.
Hmmm…
The version of the commercial that I’ve seen doesn’t say that, it uses the phrase “ assigned female at birth” . I know that because it caught my ear the first time I saw the commercial and I made a point of paying attention, I think I might have mentioned it upthread.
It’s the woke gogglestm. Available free at participating outlets.
Yeah, that’s the non-demeaning and unhateful kind of posting that is sure to mollify BB
I’d say it was targeted advertising, but if so they’ve screwed up big time… pretty sure neither of you are in the intended audience.
Because mollifying a man is ever so much more important than discussing the issues that affect us?
That sounds about right. But regardless, my point is that it didn’t dance around the word “female”. There are ways to be respectful of trans folks that still allow for effective communication. “People with vulvas” is not that.
I’m not in the least “pointing the finger” at women who’ve had hysterectomies as being in any way responsible for the wording of the article.
What I’m doing is acknowledging that the existence of women who’ve had total/radical hysterectomies and therefore don’t possess cervixes—who are quite a large percentage of all women—is one of the reasons why using the term “individuals with cervixes” is more accurate and informative than the inexact approximate synonyms “women” or “females”, when you’re talking about health guidelines that apply specifically and only to individuals with cervixes.
I don’t support using clinical descriptions as a replacement for preferred and equally accurate terms. For example, I would not use expressions like “monstro is one of the other cervix-havers in this discussion” instead of “monstro is one of the other women in this discussion”. Or “YWTF is monstro’s sibling who menstruates” instead of “YWTF is monstro’s sister”.
Even though the more clinical term in each example is unimpeachably biologically accurate, it is not socially correct because it doesn’t provide any relevant increase in specificity, so it comes across as reductive and rude.
So if there are in fact trans activists who do advocate using such unnecessarily clinical descriptions to express that, for instance, monstro is a woman and you’re monstro’s sister, then I do not agree with them and I do not approve of their position. Just as I don’t approve of using the unnecessarily clinical (and reductive and rude) description “biological males” to refer to transgender women.
However, when we are talking about situations where a clinical term does provide a useful and relevant increase in specificity compared to an inexact approximate equivalent, then it is not reductive or rude to use the clinical term.
Thus, it is not reductive or rude to use the phrase “individuals with cervixes” instead of “women” when you’re talking about health guidelines that apply specifically and only to individuals with cervixes. Because not all women have cervixes, and not all people who have cervixes identify as women.
Likewise, it is not reductive or rude to use the phrase “people who menstruate” instead of “women” when you’re talking about menstrual hygiene challenges that apply specifically and only to people who menstruate. Because not all women menstruate, and not all people who menstruate identify as women.
It was failing to understand that elementary principle that caused Rowling to make the silly tweet that garnered so much disapproval.
No, we aren’t the intended audience, which means I’m OK with the commercial using wording that I personally find stilted and cringey. I don’t really like “assigned female at birth”, but it does communicate effectively. Not everything has to cater to my linguistic preferences. I can roll with some changes. I just don’t want perfectly good words to turned be into landmines unnecessarily.
My wording was intended to make clear just why the competition is unfair, and also to point out how the majority of voters are likely to see the issue. But it’s irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that supporting a policy because Trump opposes it would be pretty stupid, and supporting a policy that’s both unfair and hugely unpopular is handing him a gift in the election. If you want a balanced solution that takes everyone’s interests into account, you should be trying to get Democratic politicians to take another look at the issue.
Yes, it’s a lot more concerning that they didn’t bother to test the new drug on (cis) women before releasing it. Medicine is already biased to treat men and their symptoms and common diseases as the standard and ignore women’s problems, not to mention ignoring what women say when we report symptoms. It’s not that I grudge men (and transwomen) a drug, but is this going to become a trend?
I don’t know. Ideally, the drug would have been tested on both males and females. But thinking about it from the shoes of a male with HIV, I know I’d rather a drug that can help me hit the market sooner rather than later. I wouldn’t want to want for additional trials to be performed. It is possible I might be prescribed medicine in the next few months that has only been approved for females, even though males can also get breast cancer. Is this a tragedy? Or is it just how these things are sometimes?
(I’m not gonna lie, though. When I first realized that ciswomen aren’t the intended audience for that drug despite all the very feminine people in the commercial and despite all the ciswomen who are sick from HIV, I did feel a certain way. It did bring to mind all the ways medicine has been biased towards men/male biology. So you do have a point about that.)
You seem to think I plucked the words non-demeaning and unhateful out of thin air.
Its neither accurate or informative to intentionally avoid the use of the word female when describIng conditions exclusive to the female reproductive system. I don’t care if we’re talking about cervical cancer or menstruation. Obfuscating language is inherently vulnerable to misinterpretation and confusion.
However, when we are talking about situations where a clinical term does provide a useful and relevant increase in specificity compared to an inexact approximate equivalent, then it is not reductive or rude to use the clinical term.
If I and millions of other women find it reductive and rude, then are you going to continue to defend its use?
Just wondering because if you object to referring to transwomen/girls as biological males on the basis on their feelings, even when “male” is clinically relevant and accurate, then it certainly seems you’re holding women to a different standard by using terms and phrases women widely perceive as reductive and rude.
That would be a woman “holding women to a different standard”, there… So where does that leave your broad brush abut what “women widely perceive”?’