No. I don’t want to get a buzzword bingo. You are tricky.
I’m surprised-You usually don’t concede to being a lying asshole this early in the game.
Be honest for once, you don’t want your own word use held against you.
Don’t think some of didn’t notice how you needed to change the subject. Racist neo-Nazis were using a stylized OK hand gesture to self-identify as racist neo-Nazis and you (and Dr Deth), for reasons unknown, don’t like that some people noticed.
Any bookstore can choose to sell or not sell whatever books they want.
Yes but big tech is eeeeeevil! How DARE they!?
@DemonTree, let me know if I missed anything.
This supposition of “dishonesty” and “concealment” seems just… weird. There is nothing at all “dishonest” about continuing to call women’s sports “women’s sports” if both transgender women and cisgender women play them.
According to the expanded definition of the word “woman”, a women’s sports team may have cisgender women and/or transgender women on it. It really seems pretty transparent and comprehensible to me.
Now, if you’re calling transgender women “women” but refusing to let them play on women’s sports teams, then I guess there is something marginally dishonest about continuing to call those sports “women’s sports” when what they really are is “cisgender women’s sports”.
Here in the US, at least, although there are a small number of high-profile cases and complaints about transgender female athletes, there is also a lot of simply taking transgender female athletes for granted as a rare but not particularly remarkable feature of female athletic teams:
If an athletic organization doesn’t ban transgender athletes, the fact that there are or may be some transgender athletes on some teams is in no way “concealment” of “what is really happening”. (Any more than an athletic organization that doesn’t ban gay athletes is “concealing” the fact that there may be some gay athletes on some teams.)
I suppose if an organization does ban transgender athletes from playing on teams of their identified gender, and a transgender athlete pretends to be cisgender in order to play on his/her chosen team, that would involve concealment and dishonesty. But that doesn’t seem to be what you’re talking about.
There’s no deception in the mere fact of transgender athletes playing alongside cisgender athletes on teams where they’re allowed to. And in the US at least, there are quite a lot of teams where they’re allowed to.
Getting all mad about that situation, and throwing around accusations of “concealment” and “dishonesty”, sounds more like an arbitrary bigoted attack on transgender people than a fairminded assessment of the role of transgender athletes in sports.
AFAICT from the above link, there are transgender athletes playing on many teams where it is simply not a big deal. Anti-trans-rights advocates are trying to present this issue as an extremely huge deal, of course, but most of the people who actually play sports with transgender athletes don’t seem to agree with them.
Maybe @DemonTree would be happier if Amazon took some hormone blockers and was forced to get sexual business reassignment surgery?
I don’t know. My daughter got her scholarship while she was still a “boy”. We always thought she was gay and then asexual (when that term became main stream).
She’s a she legally now both judicially and medically. And still earning her university scholarship via academics.
And, though I bet she’d punch my shoulder, rocking boobs and hips.
Her high school grades in our small town Iowa system would have garnered her a ride to this University… oh, yeah, it did. She didn’t come out to the uni until the year after (her sophomore year).
Her grades have kept her getting a huge break in tuition.
I will note that, once again, no one brought up the issue with trans athletes until DemonTree. This is exactly the tactic I was describing. It’s not like she’s trying to find some solution. In this case, it’s to defend her victimhood status.
It’s not even true that people can’t bring up the topic. It’s been done several times on the board. And while we did always wind up with some people posting to hate on tranas people, there was still an actual discussion.
But that discussion took the form of actually balancing the desires of trans athletes with cis athletes, looking at the science, and trying to find things that would work for everyone. It’s stuff like changing how the classifications work, doing testosterone testing, having to be on blockers for a while, requiring a medical transition, and so on. It’s even “maybe we don’t have to do anything, and just accept all women for women’s sports.” It’s not “keep the trans women away because it will harm all those cis women.” That’s only a solution if you don’t care about trans people at all, and wish to keep perpetuating lies about how trans women are a threat or are really men.
And do note that she seem impervious to the fact that it’s just not that easy to transition, and live one’s life entirely as a gender they are not, let alone if they have to medically transition. There is every reason to believe that cis men would be unable to fake being trans women.
No, all of it is just to defend her right to continue saying whatever negative stuff she wants about trans people, regardless of whether it is true, or how hurtful it is. Her views that are being rejected by society must be propped up, or that destroys freedom of speech.
She is just using the trans athlete topic as a cudgel to justify her own transphobia, and say that the rest of us should forever have to put up with it.
I find it next to impossible to read a @DemonTree OP without seeing all the ways it’s just another ‘Why can’t you people just allow us/me to hate Trans people?’ thread.
Because that’s all it has ever been, or will be.
It’s got exactly fuck and all to do with politics. Plenty of leftists say things I consider hate speech, too. Not in current America, but local leftists have said some very hateful race-related things.
Hate speech is hate speech because of its content, not because of who says it. And I’m quite happy, @WalterBishop, to call the blog @DemonTree linked to hate speech, given it has sentences like “Transwomen (biological men who identify as women) do not possess female biology; they are not women.” in it. I haven’t called DemonTree a TERF, because I don’t know if she’s a radfem or not. But if she said she was, then I would. Because she would be. And that’s independent of any discussion to be had about treatment strategies, because thats not the issue with her, it’s the existence of transwomen at all that gets her goat. She may grudgingly acknowledge “they exist”, but she so very clearly thinks they’re all delusional or worse.
I disagree. Her losing her job was adequately proportionate to this South African. Disproportionate would be, I don’t know, being assaulted or killed for it.
That’s … a reading of her “joke”, I’ll grant you.
Well, bear in mind that she was employed in America, where we only give health care to people with jobs. Getting fired here has a lot more implications than getting fired in a civilized country.
I don’t see any sexist or racist terms in the song lyrics you posted. Perhaps you’d care to point them out?
Know what else is dishonest? Partially quoting someone in order to radically change the meaning.
I’m happy for your daughter. People have explained enough on other threads how it would be unfair for someone who was born and grew up white to take a scholarship intended to help out someone who was born black and suffered from racism growing up as a result. I feel the same way about gender, but have no problems with scholarships in general, and creating scholarships especially for LGBT people would be great if they don’t already exist.
Biological male. Biological female. Natal male. Natal female. People with male bodies. People with female bodies. Any other words you might come up with to express biological sex that acknowledge it’s a thing that exists in the world and not just the arbitrary decision of a doctor.
You have entirely missed the point again. It is the argument that is dishonest. The argument that because we have redefined a word for other reasons, we must allow people with male bodies to play sports against people with female bodies, thus defeating the entire purpose of having separate categories - the purpose of giving half the population a fair chance to compete and win against each other.
And yes, I am going to keep using the terms male bodies and female bodies. They are accurate and not dehumanising, unlike your favoured ‘people with cervixes’, ‘bleeders’, ‘birthing parent’ etc. Most importantly, they make it clear what you are really supporting. Unfair competition that disadvantages the half of the population born female. The half you should be standing up for.
It’s not a tactic, BigT. It’s the point. It’s one of the ways that women and girls are being harmed by the denial that sex exists and matters. It illustrates the bad, dishonest arguments used by campaigners to get their way. If you want to talk about balancing different goods, then we can do that, but argue it honestly, not by redefining words and pretending that makes any difference to the facts on the ground. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. People with male bodies (strictly speaking, people who’ve been through male puberty) have an advantage over people with female bodies, and that remains the case no matter what you call them.
“Bludgel” is a good word.
What’s negative about being from Natal?
“Trans women athletes will dominate women’s sports and threaten the safety of cis women athletes” is the same sort of nonsense slippery slope argument as “cops won’t be able to stop or solve rapes and murders if they have to worry about consequences for brutalizing black people”.
Trans women have been able to compete in women’s sports for many years. And how many trans athletes are represented at the elite levels in their sports? Maybe one, who’s been very highly publicized (and widely threatened and harassed) and only if you stretch “elite levels” quite a bit. And she still is regularly defeated in her competitions.
Hey, @DemonTree. If you want to argue your asshole opinions about trans women do it elsewhere. This thread is about your fucking abysmal lack of knowledge about the publishing world. There’s more than enough idiocy there to support a long thread all by itself.
Or are you finally willing to admit to when you opened your month on that subject, a slurry of shit poured out that you’re embarrassed by?