…LOL. 
I’ve been watching rugby for almost all of my life. The “disparity” already exists on the field, the half-back is outsized and out-powered by the hooker, the hooker is stronger and heavier but we don’t ban the hookers from the game. Do you think we should?
Then you know full well that women are completely outclassed by men at any equivalent level of competition. I am sure you are familiar with their completely different levels of performance in virtually all sports. We’re on the same page.
You know perfectly well that the differences in physical attributes between men or women playing different positions is not comparable to the difference between men and women as groups.
Now, what is it you think a “woman” is?
Why are you bringing that up? Whether the women players are trans- or cis- women is irrelevant. There exist separate mens and womens rugby leagues. How far down would the top women’s rugby team have to play in the men’s league in order to win a game?
…you would probably know that transwomen are regularly almost alway beaten by women in equivalent levels of competition.
Yep. Transgender women have been allowed to compete in the Olympics since 2004, and how many medals have they won again?
I don’t think we are.
But trans women are women.
It seems pretty clear to me that however you decide to define “woman”, most authoritative sources would include transwomen in that definition.
…we aren’t talking about men competing against women. We are talking about women competing against transwomen. What happens in the men’s leagues are irrelevant.
But this isn’t exactly true. Prior to, well, now - the rules were changed just before the 2016 Games, but not long enough before for most athletes to qualify - the rule was that a trans athlete had to be COMPLETELY transitioned, e.g. a transsexual. We have never really seen an Olympics where “I say I’m a woman” was enough, and many national sports bodies still don’t allow trans women to compete as women. In effect, the Olympics remained off limits.
I did not ask what a trans woman was. I asked you what a WOMAN is. Are you willing to answer?
It’s relevant when talking about the biological differences between the sexes. A genetically XY person doesn’t become a genetically XX person when they are a transwomen. The genetically XY advantages of that person will still be present. In a sport with physical contact, this will typically mean that a genetically XY person will be able to hit harder and take harder hits than a genetically XX person. Comparing mens to womens teams is useful to see what this genetic difference is. If, like in soccer, the genetically XX adult athletes are comparable to the under-15 genetically XY athletes, that shows the advantage of the XY genetics.
…you are arguing against a strawman. I’ve never argued that “I’m a woman” was all you needed to declare to be able to compete as a women at the olympics. My position on this has remained unchanged since the start of this thread. They have been allowed to compete since 2004. That is exactly true.
The link to the definition of a woman was included in that quote. That definition included transgender women, and I’m perfectly fine with how woman is defined there. My answer is “what wikipedia said.”
…nope. Not relevant at all.
Yes, it is.
Those definitions conflict, though. So yeah, that’s what I figured; you don’t have an answer. Fair enough, just don’t expect your continued repetition of religious dogma to have much of an argumentative effect.
…nope. It isn’t.
I’m not really interested in what you think a genetically XY person can do to a XX person on the rugby field when we can actually see what happens on the rugby field.
…except they don’t.
So yeah, that’s what i figured; I gave you an answer then you pretended I didn’t have an answer. Fair enough, just don’t expect your continued repetition of religious dogma to have much of an argumentative effect.
But you didn’t. You still haven’t answered; Wikipedia’s articles conflict. Under “Woman” it says only females are women. Under “Transwoman” it says males can be women. Both cannot be true. (If you will kindly check Wikipedia’s article on “female,” it is very clearly not applicable to transwomen.) Wikipedia is a convenient source for many things, but in this you cannot resolve the contradiction according to their own definition of “female.”
If your position is that a woman is “an adult human female,” as you’ve now implied it is, are you relying on Wikipedia to also define female? If so, transwomen are not women, according to your chosen source here - or else your chosen source is wrong in its definitions of either women or female. Which is it?
I think that’s why you say that so vigorously and so often - you prize males over females (not necessarily you personally). A man who imitates a woman is more valuable than a woman, at least to some men for whatever reason.
A ‘manly’ woman is preferable to a typical biological woman. Even within the realm of womanhood, men who claim womanhood have more value than a biological woman. With a misogynistic preference, it would certainly be more meaningful to prize transwomen precisely because they are not women. What better way to exact revenge on biological women and keep them in their place?
In other words, I have a creeping, cynical suspicion that this is all about retaliation against biological women, who are viewed as having no rank in the social order and are despised for attempting to carve out their own niches.
Quick! We have to put those women in their place before they get uppity.
We women get the message. Capiche? Men with attitudes like this are a dime a dozen, and they’re overpriced.
We aren’t accepting that anymore. We want our own spaces, based on our own biology, our own needs, and our own sex-based culture. We do not need male approval, but thanks anyway.
Yes. It’s very old behavior and very well known. In pre-historic times, it was the precursor to religion. It’s a trust building device so that unrelated people, often groups of comparative strangers, could build trust and alliances with each other and go to war with outsiders by developing a sense of togetherness and a modicum of mutual trust.
You designate a sacred object or a sacred idea. Maybe it’s something as simple as a rock formation, or maybe it’s an edifice that is built together. Everyone agrees, perhaps reluctantly, that there is some sort of important meaning in that, but ultimately we can gather around and, in typical groupthink fashion, we conjure up a meaning to it. Then we worship it together, or at least believe that it has acquired a sacred value to those who share it with us.
That allows strangers (non kin) to place a unifying value in it. Yes, it sounds silly when you think about it, but people have a tendency to imbue value into things that we share with others. We seem to be built for it, and have repeated it throughout history. Once we perform the associated ritualistic exercises, especially over time, we can reasonably trust each other and fight together.
It’s all a very interesting part of anthropology.
While that is probably good in some ways, at least at times when it’s necessary, there is also a sinister component to it; if you don’t have a real enemy, you will manufacture one. Sometimes there is no reason to fight, but we fight anyway because it’s a natural conclusion of these behaviors.
I don’t want to make it sound like it’s entirely bad, but we should see it for what it is. The people in your video have formed their group, they are building trust with each other, almost on a religious level, in a very primitive and ritualistic fashion, and outsiders should take heed. And, they look angry while they are doing it, like they want or need an enemy.
Yes, that’s a very human thing to do, but I’m not sure it’s admirable, at least not under all circumstances. I don’t care how much togetherness they express; it they’re doing it to come after me or mine, it’s a threat and not a thing of beauty.
…but I did.
There are thousands of words on the wikipedia article about “woman.” I’m really not joking here. Thousands. Do you really think its fair to re-contextualise thousands of words as “only females are women?” Because that literally isn’t what the article says.
Wikipedia is many things, and its a great starting point for understanding gender identity. Perhaps you could try reading past (and re-contextualising) a single sentence from the article I linked to for understanding.
My position is that you should read a little bit more than the opening sentence.
It really shouldn’t have surprised me that you would have chosen to take such a disingenuous stance here. I really did expect you to dig a little bit deeper. But nuance doesn’t appear to be your thing.
Trans women are women. My chosen source says that, I stand by my chosen source.
…I still think that its disgusting that board rules allow such a disgusting characterization of transwomen to stand here. I know you spent a lot of time writing what you wrote: but I’m not going to read it. Not after this.
But it is. You can’t align “a woman is a female” with “trans women are women” Trans women are male; if a woman is a female, then trans women aren’t women. If trans women are women, women cannot be defined as being female. That is plainly contradictory, unless you have a definition for “female” that contradicts Wikipedia.
There isn’t any logical counterargument to this. Wikipedia is self-contradictory.
It’s almost like you were awaiting an opportunity to say that.
…the article is the definition, not the opening sentence.
Its pretty clear: trans women are a subset of women who had male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity.