…you cited an article that was about UK rugby referees. It was an entirely appropriate thing to talk about.
You were talking about the image?
My gut feel is “are you being fucking serious?” Photos have been used as a weapon throughout this thread. My gut feel is that I have stronger feelings about the people that choose to weaponize images than anything that is in the image itself.
There have been many cis women who have participated in this thread that disagree with the clique of posters that you happen to agree with but you discount their opinions as well. This isn’t about that with you. You have your opinions and you’ve found a group of people that agree with your opinions and you want to cancel everyone that disagrees with you, that’s all.
Then take a position on sports then. And let me take a position on sports as well. You don’t need to know what sports I’ve played competitively.
It is possible this idiot was exaggerating about some stuff and telling the truth about other stuff. You do know this, right? The orgasm bit does sound like typical adolescent male bravado. But I can certainly buy the idea that this person felt surges in their libido that manifested in a different kind of sexual experience than they were used to. Being an idiot, they may just be ill-equipped to explain this in a way that doesn’t lean on porn tropes.
…you mean the consequences of letting what is happening right now to continue to happen right now? What I think will happen (or what you think will happen) matters less than what has actually happened.
…you know this isn’t my position. You know this because we’ve had several interactions throughout this thread where I’ve been pretty explicit that this isn’t my position.
That’s one possible reading. Another is that he’s a troll, and the reason why his post reads exactly like one that would come from an incel’s imagination is that that’s exactly where it came from. I subscribe to Occam’s Razor, so I think I know which seems more likely to me. YMMV.
I don’t think they are unreasonable, but the requirements to compete are more extensive that you might find in most sports:
Surgical anatomical changes have been completed, including external genitalia and gonadectomy
Hormone therapy appropriate for the assigned sex (female) … for a minimum of two years after gonadectomy
But that’s definitely not an example of TWAW, since there are a lot more requirements than just saying “I’m a transwoman, therefore I can compete in women sports”.
To be honest, I don’t know how much of that goes on in MMA. Based on my understanding and how MMA fighters are matched, there is likely going to be less disparity than in sports where a mismatch in size and strength is more likely to occur.
Can you think of a minority group that is granted special privileges, whose membership isn’t and has never been guarded by certain rules and conditions?
Can you think of any minority group that has been forced to accept anyone who felt entitled to that group’s label, no questions asked?
I see a very powerfully built transwoman playing a very physically aggressive game against some very athletic but markedly smaller women players. What do you see?
For someone who was quite adamant about the fact that cancel culture isn’t a thing to be concerned with, you a seem awfully concerned with my perceived abilities to cancel those with whom I happen to disagree.
I did take a position on sports. I asked you about your experience in sports because it seems like actually having been involved in sports might give one some insight that might not be so intuitive for those who haven’t had that experience. And I’ve been beaten in races by women athletes. I have a lot of healthy respect for what women athletes are capable. of.
more of what is happening right now is the key. I’m glad you are concerned about what actually does happen though. By that admission I assume you are open to reviewing this if harm can be shown to be on the increase?
But no one would ever lie about being a transwoman! There’s intense social pressure against doing that!
You want me to believe that people will lie about their identity online, but those same people will never be embolded by an ideology that asserts gender is an invisible feeling that can never be disproven? I’m supposed to believe an Incel will lie online about being a woman, but they will never step into the women’s locker room, never try out for sports teams reserved for women, and never identify as a woman for the purposes of employment, college applications, or scholarships? Not now and not ever? And you think that’s consistent with Occam’s Razor?
There’s a difference between a reddit account you make as a throwaway to post inflammatory shit, and the real life you who is going to school.
I’m not saying those things will never happen, because obviously, men walk into women’s locker rooms all the time, sometimes for notorious purposes. But will it happen in sufficient numbers that it causes a problem? You haven’t shown any evidence that this is true.
In your hypothetical scenario where 5% of boys question their gender once we are no longer stamping out the first hint of gender nonconformence… I would say if that happened, then maybe thats evidence that the whole concept of gender needs to be reexamined.
I dont think that would happen, mind you, but I’m not afraid of finding out.
The more comments I see on ‘TERFs’ the more it scares me. Misogynists no longer have to hide their hatred, they’ve been handed an excuse to insult, threaten, and harm women under the guise of supporting trans rights, while other people cheer them on.
…here’s a picture of Jonah Lomu running over Mike Catt in probably his most famous try of his career. Both played the same position (opposite wings), Lomu weighed 114kg while Mike Catt was only 86kg. Lomu walked right over him.
What do you see? Do you see a very powerfully built polynesian playing a very physically aggressive game against some very athletic but a markedly smaller white man? Or do you see rugby players on the field playing a game of rugby?
Because when I look at the picture you presented all I see is rugby players on the field playing rugby. If you are seeing anything else that’s a result of your individual bias, nothing more.
Just pointing out the obvious: the people who complain about cancel culture the most are the people who spend the most time trying to cancel other people.
Quantify “more.”
I mean, you are British and all, but have you even seen a rugby game? You’ve seen a tiny first-five-eighth run headfirst into a prop? Can you imagine the consequence of allowing such high-energy impacts on a group of people far less able to withstand them? Well I can: we see it on the rugby field all the time.
…if you don’t know what my position is then you aren’t in the position to put words in my mouth. So stop doing that already.
Why wouldn’t you support trans rights?
Because “obvious” is a subjective measure, not an objective one. And what you consider obvious and what other consider obvious is often a very different thing.
I’m gonna ask you what I’ve asked others, just in a slightly different way.
Why do we even have sex-segregated spaces, if I’m a silly person for worrying about the harm that will result from emboldening and entitling males to women’s spaces?
The first part of this thread was devoted to evidence that shows what happens when males have access to women’s spaces. I don’t feel like posting all of that evidence again. But just know that there is a lot of harm already occurring. We’ve just normalized it because the man-bites-woman narrative is as old as dirt. It is very foolish to think harm will not increase if women’s spaces are turned into safe spaces for males–spaces where males will never be questioned or asked to leave unless someone nabs them in the process of committing a crime. It’s as foolish as thinking that no one will take the $100 bill that’s sitting in the middle of the sidewalk as long as there’s a velvet rope around it. A velvet rope is empty theater. A “women’s room” sign hanging on the door of a room that any male can go into without anyone saying anything to them is empty theater.
What we have now–female-presenting males being allowed to use women’s spaces–is not the only thing gender ideologues want. They want any male, no matter how bearded they are, to be able to claim women’s spaces as their own. They are fine with guys like this having a safe space, even if it comes at the expense of women’s safety. Right now it isn’t a social crime to scream at the sight of a person like this coming into a women’s space. Gender ideologues want it to be a social crime. Anyone who can’t see how this will translate into additional harm simply isn’t thinking hard enough. It’s harm that will fall overwhelmingly on ciswomen.
In your hypothetical scenario where 5% of boys question their gender once we are no longer stamping out the first hint of gender nonconformence… I would say if that happened, then maybe thats evidence that the whole concept of gender needs to be reexamined.
That’s refreshing, I guess, but how much harm do women have to endure before gender ideology needs to be reexamined? If there ever comes a time when 5% of women athletes who would have been awarded college athletic scholarships today are displaced from those opportunities by transwomen, would you think it’s time to reassess things? If there comes a time when research shows a 5% uptick in women’s victimization in women’s spaces governed by policies that forbid gender interrogation, would you care then?
Because I don’t care if 5% of teenaged boys have a identity crisis and decide to spend a couple of years as girls. I only care about harmful stuff. If these boys are treated like girls in every way, then I know there will be harm. But I’m fine with whatever if we have rules in place to keep them from being treated like girls in every way. I can roll with anything I consider to be thoughtful and intelligent. I am not able to roll with something that presumes intense social pressure will prevent harm. Nothing in the history of humankind supports this kind of idealism.
One difference on the mens side is that the players have been playing in matches which have a male-level of aggression. Presumably, these players have developed over the years to be accustomed to that level of aggression and have developed the skills to deal with it. The reverse is not the same. The females have been playing against other females and are accustomed to the female level of play and aggression. Females are going to be overpowered by a biological male and not necessarily physically prepared to take the stronger hits from a biological male opponent.
