Funny, that’s the same reasoning that people say they need to carry guns around - “What if?”
Female is on my birth certificate but I have never been feminine. I don’t consider myself trans, just a woman lacking feminine traits. I have been pulled up many times in women’s restrooms, my favourite is when they haul in a male security guard to kick me out. The lovely people at my pool asked if I minded using the family changerooms (usually off limits to solo folks) because they were sick of the fuss. Staff would be called, walk in, see me and roll their eyes, slip me a wink and go out to tell the fearful ones it was safe. As I age it is becoming dangerous as younger, larger women think they can beat me in a fight.
If I have to deal with this I despair for our trans community, I have no idea what the answers are but I hope we find them fast. My bladder is 53 years old and not as robust as it once was. Summers are also hotter and I am sick of getting migraines via dehydration for trying to avoid needing to use a public facility in my travels.
There was also the day I showed up for my breast screening and was never called in because they thought it was a man in the waiting room and that I must have run away. I didn’t even realise how poor my medical care was until I was encouraged to go to an inner city clinic where they are more used to the likes of me by a visiting doctor at my local clinic. She was right but shouldn’t have been.
nm
The difference is that people do get assaulted, robbed, or otherwise find themselves in situations where they might need to defend themselves, all the time. None of the shit that transphobics claim is going to happen with transgender people actually happens. Anyway, do we really need to debate about guns in THIS thread?
Drop the gun hijack and stop trolling.
[/moderating]
Ow, that’s a shame anyone has to go through with crap like that. If femininity (or the reverse) doesn’t come naturally to anyone, people in society need to get over it already. They have no business or authority to gender police another person, no one does.
When I was in for either a breast screening or a liver ultrasound, another lady in the waiting room asked me if I was in for a Pap smear. At moments like that, or when asked about my periods, I allow that I was born without a uterus.
Hubbard has won competitions by such a ludicrously wide margin that one would be inclined to ask if the weights lifted were a typo.
Here are the total weight results from her category at the 2017 Masters:
Hubbard, New Zealand - 280
Hohepa, New Zealand - 158
Zvgzee, Mongolia - 117
Reardon, Great Britain - 112
That’s just a little dominant.
Rachel McKinnon was a professional athlete? In what sport?
We’ll see. But, hey, in the meantime, I guess women will unfairly lose medals, competitions and opportunities in order to prove it. We shall see, notably if the McKinnons get their way, and no hormone therapy or testosterone limits are required at major competitions.
Also: possibly not the most representative sample. The olympicweightlifting.nz results are giving me a 502 error, so I can’t pull them up, but I can find the results from Anaheim, at the world weightlifting championship. Here’s the gold, silver, and bronze:
Snatch: 126 kg, 124 kg, 119 kg
Clean & Jerk: 158 kg, 153 kg, 152 kg
Total: 284 kg, 275 kg, 268 kg
Two notable things about these results.
First: they’re all very close together, in the range of Hubbard’s 2017 Masters performance. Meaning that if Hubbard was, in fact, that dominant there, it’s a result of an incredibly weak field, not Hubbard being inhumanly strong. In fact, it makes me think you’re probably reading the results wrong, as those figures you cited are more in line with the snatch than the total. Could you pass me a working link?
Second: Hubbard didn’t win. She got silver in Snatch and Total, and didn’t even place in the Clean & Jerk.
So what does this prove? Well, first of all, it proves that even in the sport where male physiology makes the biggest conceivable difference, transwomen do not have a built-in advantage that makes them unstoppable. Remember, Laurel Hubbard was a record-setting weightlifter before transitioning as well. This is not some random person; she’s been an elite athlete all her life. And she still didn’t win, despite the alleged advantage she has.
It’s the same problem we run into which you didn’t quote in my previous post - the fact that these transwomen who “win unfair competitions” often get to those “unfair competitions” after losing a whole lot of other “unfair competitions”. You didn’t address that, so I’ll go ahead and repost it - was it also unfair the 9 out of 11 times that Rachel McKinnon lost to Jennifer Wagner? Did she have some unfair advantage then too?
This whole thing feels disgustingly transphobic. You’ve started from the position of “transwomen have an unfair advantage in sports”, and any time a transwoman is successful in any sports situation, you’re going to chalk that up as proof that they have an unfair advantage. Never mind that if they didn’t have an unfair advantage, you’d expect some transwomen to have some success. Never mind the scientific research examining this problem and finding that, no, they don’t (the research the IOC’s decisions were based on in the first place). Never mind that the transwomen in question often have years of results that indicate that, no, they are not dominant, but rather compete on the level with ciswomen athletes.
You want to present actual evidence that transwomen have an advantage? Be my guest! But “Laurel Hubbard did really well in one extremely low-performance competition and/or I misread the results” is not evidence of that. It just isn’t.
I’m so glad that this was the one thing you took away from my response on McKinnon that you saw fit to respond to. But thank you for your curiosity! It was in the article I linked, but here it is again - She played Badminton.
This remains transphobic garbage. Like, not even just the modern definition of “hatred of trans people”, but also the straight-up etymological definition - you’re irrationally afraid of trans people. And I say irrational based entirely on your arguments here. Literally the only arguments you’ve brought forth for why these wins would be illegitimate are complete nonsense. The current state of the scientific research on the subject is that transwomen who have undergone HRT do not have a significant physical advantage over ciswomen. Citing individual cases of transwomen winning sporting events does not change that. These are bad TERF arguments resting on bad assumptions that are deeply transphobic and insulting to any transwoman currently in or trying to get into sports in any capacity.
And that’s sort of what it boils down to. The results of these demands, if we surrender to them, is that transwomen are effectively excluded from sports entirely. Just like the bathroom bills aim to exclude trans people from public spaces. That’s what the OP is complaining about!
Y’know I just noticed that I’m talking to a moderator. That’s… concerning.
Yes. The existence of an unfair advantage doesn’t guarantee victory; it simply makes an unfair victory more likely. I would point out that…
And there we go; the issue cannot be raised, because one side is evil. Got it.
RickJay, you aren’t usually narrow-minded or so sure you are right; I wish you would maybe think of lightening up on this subject. I won’t say you are transphobic because I don’t know you, but I will say that you have taken a position that seems to go against experience, and I have to wonder why.
I’m not even staking out a particularly solid position here aside from the position that transwomen who have not had any medical intervention at all, not even hormone therapy should not be permitted to play competitive women’s sports. I realize it’s not everyone’s cup of tea that I’d even raise the subject, but that’s life. I’m not attacking anyone personally and am willing to discuss it civilly.
Okay, great. So if a transwoman takes part in 100 bike races, wins one, and loses 99, you will take that one and point to it as proof positive that transwomen have an unfair advantage. Do I have that about right?
That’s bullshit.
Again, this argument only makes sense if you assume what you’re trying to prove. It’s circular; you are begging the question. You have not presented any evidence to back up your opinion that transwomen should effectively be barred from professional sports. Your argument is no better than the argument that we should ban them from women’s restrooms or women’s prisons because some of them might be rapists.
Well, what am I supposed to take away from this? You want to effectively ban transwomen from taking part in sporting events. Not to be overly dramatic about it, but the highest-level group dealing with these issues, the IOC, sees participation in sports as a human right, so in the context of demanding that transwomen not participate as women, you are effectively calling for them to rescind that right from transwomen. It’d be one thing if you had good arguments, if there was good data backing up this idea that transwomen have an unfair advantage. But there isn’t. Your arguments are abysmal! They’re one step up from taking this picture and saying, “see, look at how unfair it is that trans people take part in women’s sports”. (Please, *please *understand why that is a shitty non-argument.) It’s insulting towards the competitors, discouraging towards any transwoman who wants to get into sports, and deeply transphobic.
And my response to that: Fuck. That. Noise. You don’t get to parade terrible, bigoted arguments around and not get called on it. Your arguments are wrong and transphobic. If you have a problem with that, consider making arguments that aren’t terrible or not arguing for a transphobic position.
Laurel Hubbard underwent hormone replacement therapy.
Rachel McKinnon underwent hormone replacement therapy.
The IOC guidelines, which most sports that allow transwomen to participate in copy, require hormone replacement therapy.
You may think that transwomen who haven’t undergone HRT is what you’re talking about, but it’s not actually what you’re talking about, and if you mean to talk about transwomen who have undergone no medical intervention, you should stop bringing up transwomen who have spent most of their lives living as women.
That is correct, they did (though it is McKinnon’s strenuous insistence she shouldn’t have to.) However, the Connecticut boys track champions did not, and the Canada Winter Games is removing all such requirements, and such requirements will continue to be dropped here and there, so in fact it is a growing issue.
This clearly makes you very angry and we’re hijacking someone else’s thread, so we should probably stop doing that.
To me, whether someone is trans or not does not matter unless I am getting into their pants, and since I am very happily married, that isn’t much of a problem.
So I read this thread earlier, and then pretty much forgot about it. Then, I happened to read this article, and it exemplifies one of the few things that does bother me about how trans people are presented in the media: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/style/really-bad-stuff.html
“Jennifer Malkowski, an assistant professor of film and media studies at Smith College, who uses they/them pronouns…”
Why do I care that they use they/them pronouns? What difference does it make to the story? It serves no other purpose in the story except to identify that they are trans. I get that part of de-stigmatizing a thing is to point out how normal it is and how many people are/are doing that thing, but does it really have to be mentioned when it has no connection to the story at all?
What if it said, “Jennifer Malkowski, an assistant professor of film and media studies at Smith College, who is black…” or “Jennifer Malkowski, an assistant professor of film and media studies at Smith College, who is Jewish…” wouldn’t you expect that to have some bearing on the story? Why is this only done (positively) with trans folk?
Unless you are competing against women in gender segregated sports, I have no issue.
Honestly, you don’t know who you’re going to piss off when going to the bathroom, so whatever. I’ve seen videos of transgender people getting abuse by men AND women when going to the bathroom (and they should be prosecuted), but when ya gotta go you gotta go, I’m sure the transgender person can use their best judgement in that area.
It makes perfect sense in this context. The article, after introducing Malkowski, goes on to use “they” to refer to Malkowski. Presumably Dr. Malkowski insisted on the use of those pronouns, so NYT of course did so because it would be rude not to, but that would likely confuse many readers, most of whom are unused to the use of plural pronouns to refer to an individual. Clarifying Malkowski’s choice of pronoun is simply be a way of helping the reader follow along. There isn’t any comparable possibility of confusion arising from Malkowski being black, Jewish, or some other thing that doesn’t affect grammar.
Incidentally, this doesn’t necessarily mean Malkowski is transgender; some people have chosen to use they/them for other reasons. They may be, I don’t know, but what I do know for sure is they started something called the “Video Game Research Lab” at Smith College, which sounds like the best post-secondary educational thing ever.
What, seriously? I use they/them as singular pronouns all the time, notably including on this board, when I’m talking about another poster and don’t want to make any presumptions about them and their gender/sex/whichever.
In the context of a newspaper column that might be odd, though. I’m just guessing at why the NYT would do that, it’s the only reason that makes sense.
Only, one, people do find it confusing and if you haven’t noticed that we’re not reading the same threads (it hasn’t come up in a while, but it’s something that does come up), and two, in this particular case the person’s name is “Jennifer” so most people would expect feminine pronouns.