I’m sorry Wikipedia’s three relevant articles contradict one another, but they unquestionably do. You chose a poor source to rely on, as opposed to explaining your own position, but you could still choose to do that.
…I’m sorry that you’ve chosen to ignore all the words that I’ve cited that show exactly how wrong you are, but you do you.
But here’s the thing.
Trans women are women.
I’ve explained my position on this in multiple posts in this thread.
I’ve explained it to you in a couple of other threads on these boards.
I have absolutely no doubt you understand exactly what my position is and you didn’t need me to explain it. That we are back here again, after months of arguing about the exact same thing, is really all on you. I stand by the totality of the article I linked to. This thread is in IMHO and I don’t see any reason to do any more than that.
Watched it all my life and played at various levels.
The consequences of the higher energy impacts are dramatic in the game in general. There has been a concerted effort to tackle it in recent years. Is it sensible to introduce an expanding situation in womens rugby that may act against that direction of travel?
As for quantifying “more” I would have thought that it was obvious. No matter I’ll clarify and ask my question again (you didn’t answer)
This is the test for intellectual honesty. If it can be shown that there is no additional injury risk for biological males playing with biological females then I’ll say it is a non-issue. Are you open to the reverse being true? Are you willing to consider evidence that it does cause more injury?
…I don’t bother to answer your questions any more because every single time you direct a question to me its because your goal is a “gotcha” answer. Not just this thread. But every thread. Its a tiresome, disingenuous game that I can’t be bothered playing anymore. I’m not interested in playing hypotheticals. If you can’t quantify the damage then we’ve got nothing to discuss.
If inclusion is such a great thing, why aren’t you campaigning for white people to join? You don’t even need your own league because you can play in the main one. Women can’t do that.
Women’s rugby doesn’t have a tenth of the recognition or funding of men’s rugby. Biological females who transition to male are not winning in men’s sports or setting men’s records, and they are not going to be, because of male advantage.
The policy you support takes sporting opportunity away from female born people, who already have much less and are under big disadvantages, and gives it to male born people, who already have much more because of their huge inherent advantages. It’s always women who lose out because of this, trans men are not taking awards for men or places on committees reserved for men or men’s sporting records or becoming best paid executive (the ‘male’ doesn’t even need saying because you know it’s going to be a man), or being held up as role models for your kids: ‘to succeed, first be born a white male’.
It’s not because we want our fucking gender affirmed. It’s because men have real and large physical advantages, so we have no chance of beating them. When I beat a man in any sport I feel pretty damn proud of myself. I’d be bloody delighted if I could quality for men’s events. The point of dividing sports by sex is not to affirm anyone’s gender, it’s because male bodies have huge physical advantages over female ones. And transwomen have male bodies, no matter how they feel inside.
I’m not expecting you to listen to this, since you don’t seem to care about biological women at all, or to have ever noticed how very unequal the sexes still are in so many areas. You could at least refrain from gloating when women are placed in more danger and lose more opportunities, though.
Until now they needed full SRS to compete, which rules out many. Also in the past it was most common for women to transition in middle age, after their sporting careers were largely over. But the trend is towards earlier transition, so we are highly likely to see more transgender competitors in the future. Trans women, anyway. Wanna make a prediction for when we’ll see a biological female winning a men’s Olympic medal?
…white people can join if they are Maori.
Who can play in the main one?
Women can’t do what?
And we should fix that.
And biological men who transition to woman are barely winning in women’s sports and when they do we all hear about it because they are the exception, not the rule.
The same argument is used to attack programmes designed to give women and people of colour opportunities, you do realize that, don’t you? Exactly the same language.
And transgender women do not have huge inherent advantages.
So transmen have it worse than transwomen? That’s terrible. We should fix that, shouldn’t we?
Its not gloating.
This thread has been going on for months. You’ve posted here practically every day. And you don’t post positive transgender stories. You don’t share happy transgender stories. You sow fear. You promote distrust. The decision to continue to allow transwomen to play rugby doesn’t put women in danger and isn’t taking away opportunities either. This is needless fearmongering.
I think its fantastic news that this has happened. After everything that has happened in the last four years, after the damage that has been done in the UK to transgender rights by activists, to the outright removal of rights in the USA, its good to have a victory, small as it may be. And I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to celebrate here. You are still free to continue to post negative transgender stories here as much as you like. Its not as if anyone is going to stop you.
Not particularly.
No “gotcha”, Just because you’ve had your intellectually dishonest position exposed you seem to think that is somehow unfair. It is a transparent tactic on your part and we can all see it in pretty much every post you write.
I’ve stated my willingness to consider facts both for and against a position. You won’t even dignify it with an answer because you know that means you will no longer be able to ride both horses. You hate the thought that pesky facts might force you to change your mind. I personally welcome better facts.
You already in one breath complain about intrusive personal and medical questioning on a persons seriousness regarding gender, but in the same breath endorse authorities requiring medical interventions to be allowed to play sports. You are Schrodinger’s debater, with the slight caveat that at least there was a way to ultimately know if the cat was dead or alive.
…this isn’t a debate thread. If you want a debate then go open a thread in Great Debates. There is nothing intellectually dishonest in my opinions, if you want to accuse me of that can I suggest you take it to the pit. This thread is in IMHO, I’m expressing my opinion, I have no obligation to answer your questions.
Now as I said: if you don’t want to quantify your (baseless) assertions we’ve got nothing to discuss.
There is no law saying you can’t have a debate here. We are free to answer honest questions or dodge them as we see fit. This massive thread has been a continuous back-and-forth, a de-facto debate. It is a bit late to whine about this not being the place for the debate that it clearly is.
It isn’t an accusation, it is a well-meaning observation. That is precisely how you come across. You seem unwilling to answer a straight question in a straightforward manner and forever answer questions with multiple, multiple, multiple other questions to make it seem like it is others who are refusing to answer you.
and indeed, you are making good use of that option
What baseless assertion have I made? If you are referring to the risk of increased harm from males playing against females I refer you to the assessment made by World Rugby. I think that may be right or wrong and that data on the reality of it could move me in either direction. Completely open and honest.
Now, if if isn’t too much trouble, could you be moved in either direction based on the data? I’m not asking you what your position is now, I know that, but are you open to the possibility of changing your mind based on evidence?
That’s just one simple question and absolutely central to the discussion we are having. I can and have answered it without worrying where it takes me.
Damn BB, I know how much you love the line-by-line replying thing, but that was excessive even for you.
Women in general can’t play in men’s leagues of any sport, because men have a huge physical advantage. Inclusion is a great thing, but sometimes it doesn’t work. Having separate sports for men and women is discrimination, but discrimination is not always bad.
Yes, there should be more recognition for women’s sports, there should definitely be more women at the top in business, etc. But those things haven’t happened yet. You’re taking from people who already have less. Why the fuck shouldn’t we complain about that and try to prevent it?
You sure love your slogan, but this just shows the problems with it. When it comes to sports, bodies are crucial, and trans women have male bodies. Yes, hormones make up some of the difference, but by no means all. The fact trans men are not having nearly the same success demonstrates that. You are taking opportunities from females, who have few, and giving them to males, who have many. It’s just sexism in disguise. Transmen don’t have it worse than transwomen, women have it worse than men, and transition does not erase all those advantages and disadvantages, and it cannot change those incurred in the past. That is the source of the disparities.
You are not a scientist, and the experts who have actually looked into the issue rather that relying on slogans and wishful thinking disagree. Do you think global warming is needless fearmongering too?
Babale:
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.
monstro:
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?
In light of the recent conversation, I’m gonna add another:
If research were to show that there is a 5% increase in the injury rate among female rugby players for every X number of transwomen rugby players on the field, would folks feel like this warranted a reexamination of gender ideology? Because I have a feeling that folks who reflexively fall back on TWAW when they get cornered in a debate aren’t going to do that. They will just find a way to blame the females who get injured. They are probably TERFs anyway, so they deserve to have their skulls fractured.
That’s easy enough to say if your perspective is that trans women are men pretending to be women (as a number of you have implied) and therefore we are taking things from a discriminated against group (women) and giving their hard won rights to someone more privileged.
But as this thread proves, trans women aren’t men. They face tons of hatred from women who see them as glory-grabbing men.
I’m gonna put this bit in all caps so that maybe it finally sinks through, but I doubt it.
TRANS WOMEN ARE NOT MEN WHO ARE FAKING IT. THIS IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF MEN GRABBING WOMEN’S RIGHTS BECAUSE TRANS WOMEN ARE NOT MEN. THEY ARE WOMEN.
You could also say “no woman above 200 lbs can play rugby” and find that the injury rates drop even further. So should that be our next step?
“If you are OK with kids playing in a quiet residential street with the occasional slow-moving car, you must be OK with kids playing in an expressway with a steady stream of vehicles going 80 MPH. If you aren’t OK with both scenarios, you are just being a hater!”
That is how your comment reads to me.
Yes, that’s how the comment would read to anyone who thinks that trans women are not women; but rather violent, angry incels who hate women and want to see all they have accomplished torn down, so they pretend to be women to do so. But of course, since they’re men at heart, they are constantly seething with barely restrained testosterone induced rage that makes them a danger to our soft, vulnerable female population.
The rest of us, who understand that trans women are women, don’t think an analogy where a trans woman is a semitrailer on a highway while “real” women are tricycles on a cul de sace is particularly appropriate.
Also, apparently the difference between a highway and a cul de sac is 5%?
I’d personally be willing to examine the data for it and base my decision accordingly.
Would you be willing to do the same regarding biological males playing against biological females?
Definitely - if you had a study that showed that, statistically speaking, a trans woman is significantly more likely to injure other players when controlling for things like weight and player skill, then it would be a discussion I’d be open to having. But no such data exists. Instead what we get is people crowing about specific examples of injuries, ignoring the fact that women injure women (and men injure men) in sports all the time.
Yes, that’s how the comment would read to anyone who thinks that trans women are not women; but rather violent, angry incels who hate women and want to see all they have accomplished torn down, so they pretend to be women to do so.
And all of your comments read like the opinions of someone who doesn’t give a fuck about harm unless it happens to a male person.
We can do this all day.
I noticed you didn’t answer the fucking question, though. I’ll frame it in yet another way:
If 5% of women wind up harmed by gender ideology who wouldn’t have been harmed otherwise, do you think this would be enough evidence to justify a reassessment of gender ideology? Keep it mind that billions of people on this planet are women, so 5% is a big number. .