Their looks?
One could try but it’s meagre picking grounds when it comes to a handsome devil like Linehan.
Their looks?
Sorry - I find the argument ridiculous. It's actually pretty uncomfortable that you are trying to associate the trans debate with racist abuse. Classic strawman 'just label those that disagree' a bigot type behaviour. It's pathetic, childish and unhelpful.
sorry, what's ridiculous about it exactly?
and yes, i do think racism, like sexism, homophobia and transphobia is bigoted behaviour. i think you'll find most people do.
edit: also, there is no 'trans debate'. what you're talking about is transphobia.
discussing the nuances of what defines a real biological women with a vagina is not transphobia.
discussing the nuances of what defines a real biological women with a vagina is not transphobia.
pic not showing up for me!
What's your view of Posie Parker?
No idea who he/she is.
Ok. Rowling knows very well who she is, and is a fan. For some highlights, Parker pretends to be an ally of lesbians while she works with the anti-gay hate group American College of Pediatricians who champions conversion therapy. She is a "feminist" who says that giving up the right to abortion is no problem if it helps in the fight against trans people. She's someone who calls for men to arm themselves and enter women's bathrooms in an effort to stop trans women from using women's bathrooms. This is a part of Rowling's "different opinions" about trans people.
What's your opinion on Magdalen Berns? Rowling is a fan, it's a part of her "different opinions" about trans people. Do you agree with them?
I'll have to dig up some material from them both!
I find this in the topic of trans a bit disingenuous.URL time:
https://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions/vaginal-agenesis
https://www.livescience.com/60162-born-without-vagina-mrkh-syndrome.html
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001497.htm
Also:
Scientific American – Sex Redefined
Sapiens – Rejecting the Sex Binary
Massive Sci – Sex isn’t binary, and we should stop acting like it is
How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling - PubMed (nih.gov)Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.
It’s the “that’s the joke” meme. He’s making a (crap) joke about having to learn photoshop when he knows everyone who sees the tweet will know exactly how those images were really made.
URL time:
https://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions/vaginal-agenesis
https://www.livescience.com/60162-born-without-vagina-mrkh-syndrome.html
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001497.htm
Also:
Scientific American – Sex Redefined
Sapiens – Rejecting the Sex Binary
Massive Sci – Sex isn’t binary, and we should stop acting like it is
discussing the nuances of what defines a real biological women with a vagina is not transphobia.
you seem to be conflating sex and gender.
of course trans women weren't born with a vagina. if their gender identity matched their sex they wouldn't be trans.
fair enough, i wasn't giving him enough credit for making the joke then. feels like he forgot about humour completely about 10 years ago
you seem to be conflating sex and gender.
of course trans women weren't born with a vagina. if their gender identity matched their sex they wouldn't be trans.
The issue seems to be whether biological sex including physiological and society differences including advantages, disadvantages and vulnerabilities experienced by those based on their biological sex can just be overridden by someone declaring themselves that they no longer apply
The whole thread exudes ironic male privilege, villifying women for being afraid of risk posed by male-bodied people whilst pretending the whole debate is nothing more than some silly Tweets by a has-been comedy writer.
Bunch of men agreeing that a women saying single sex spaces should be reserved for those of a particular sex if a stupid old, haggard, mentalist TERF whore. Nothing to see here, of course.
IMO it would be false equivalency to compare homosexuality with trans identity since latter has medical implications which former does not. I have seen people make similar comparisons by saying they would not want teachers snitch to parents about students not wearing religious symbols like Hijab or disclose them being gay. But a student progressing towards being trans ultimately will have some medical implications that will require participation from parents so it is an entirely different issue. You can not on one hand say trans youth are at heightened risk and then on the other compare it to all kinds of different situations others might face in schools. Yes, a part of that risk is from opposition from parents but in that case the only solution is to involve state social services not to hide it from parents.
Mrs. Bradshaw said she wouldn’t align herself with Republican lawmakers who sought to ban L.G.B.T.Q. rights, but she also felt as though her school’s policy left no room for nuance.
“It is almost impossible to have these discussions,” Mrs. Bradshaw said. “There is no forum for someone like me.”
exactly the slippery slope i thought was wrong. those random trans stalinists i follow are vindicated.Transitioning socially, Dr. Anderson wrote, “is a major and potentially life-altering decision that requires parental involvement, for many reasons.”
how magnanimous!Mr. Perez said that although he was a Catholic who objected to his child transitioning on religious grounds, he respected the rights of families who disagreed with him because he believed it was up to parents to decide on such matters.
I had to tell my son it was OK for him not to have to respect a person's point of view. Respect their right to their point of view, but the opinion itself should get the beating it deserves.I think the idea that we shouldn’t judge people based on their opinions is about as ridiculous as it gets. What else should we judge people on if not their opinions and their acts?
An open category makes the most sense. You retain the integrity of fair competition whilst not excluding anyone from racing.UK Athletics wants open category for male and transgender athletes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/64514819
UK Athletics wants a change in legislation to ensure the women's category is lawfully reserved for competitors who are recorded female at birth.
The governing body says all transgender athletes should be allowed to compete with men in an open category.
Chair Ian Beattie said the governing body wanted athletics to be a "welcoming environment for all", but added it had a responsibility to "ensure fairness" in women's competition.
"We would appeal to all those engaged in this discussion online to share their thoughts in a way that is respectful of the differing opinions and sensitive nature of the debate," said Beattie.
UKA disagrees with the use of testosterone suppression for transgender women as there is "currently no scientifically robust, independent research showing that all male performance advantage is eliminated".
UKA added it has seen "no evidence that it is safe for transgender women to reduce their hormonal levels by testosterone suppression", and that there is "insufficient research to understand the effects on transgender women if such testosterone suppression is carried out suddenly".
Therefore it would instead like to reserve the female category for those who were recorded female at birth and have not undergone transition.
UKA does not believe the 'sporting exemption' introduced in the Equalities Act of 2010 allows them to lawfully exclude transgender women in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate from competing.
BBC Sport understands the government disagrees with UK Athletics' stance that the law does not allow it to ban transgender women from female events on fairness grounds.
It believes the 2010 Equality Act does allow sports to protect the female category.
---
Make their suggestion make sense. They already can and have changed the rules to limit trans participation.
And an 'open' category? So trans men, trans women and cis men? Or will trans men have to compete with women because they were recorded female at birth?
I would agree with that, while also saying that society may need to decide, in a few areas, what the rules are should the rights of one group clash with the rights of another. There should always be room for a debate about what those areas are, why and the limits, so a resolution can be found.Let people be who they want to be and accept them for their choice, for there is no universal wisdom around these matters. All of us are on our own quest for peace and happiness. One journey isn’t any more superior than the other.
And an 'open' category? So trans men, trans women and cis men? Or will trans men have to compete with women because they were recorded female at birth?
UK Athletics wants open category for male and transgender athletes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/64514819
UK Athletics wants a change in legislation to ensure the women's category is lawfully reserved for competitors who are recorded female at birth.
The governing body says all transgender athletes should be allowed to compete with men in an open category.
Chair Ian Beattie said the governing body wanted athletics to be a "welcoming environment for all", but added it had a responsibility to "ensure fairness" in women's competition.
"We would appeal to all those engaged in this discussion online to share their thoughts in a way that is respectful of the differing opinions and sensitive nature of the debate," said Beattie.
UKA disagrees with the use of testosterone suppression for transgender women as there is "currently no scientifically robust, independent research showing that all male performance advantage is eliminated".
UKA added it has seen "no evidence that it is safe for transgender women to reduce their hormonal levels by testosterone suppression", and that there is "insufficient research to understand the effects on transgender women if such testosterone suppression is carried out suddenly".
Therefore it would instead like to reserve the female category for those who were recorded female at birth and have not undergone transition.
UKA does not believe the 'sporting exemption' introduced in the Equalities Act of 2010 allows them to lawfully exclude transgender women in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate from competing.
BBC Sport understands the government disagrees with UK Athletics' stance that the law does not allow it to ban transgender women from female events on fairness grounds.
It believes the 2010 Equality Act does allow sports to protect the female category.
---
Make their suggestion make sense. They already can and have changed the rules to limit trans participation.
And an 'open' category? So trans men, trans women and cis men? Or will trans men have to compete with women because they were recorded female at birth?
Always thought that this was the cleanest way to get around the issue. It protects the integrity of female sports, and also gives trans people a place they can still compete if they wish. I know some trans individual will view it as discrimination, but you are never going to have every single individual 100% happy, and at least they can play the sports they love still this way.
In theory, but it's also going to be such a niche category that I guess it could end up in a scenario where the professional status of current athletes is at jeopardy due to lack of competition?
In theory, but it's also going to be such a niche category that I guess it could end up in a scenario where the professional status of current athletes is at jeopardy due to lack of competition?
This makes me wonder how niche an existing olympic sport has to become before getting removed from the program. Like, how many transgender steeplechase competitors are there?
If they go for a third gender category then there should be some ground rules when it comes to number of competitors and the median level of said competitors.
Either you guys or me are misunderstanding the proposal. I don’t see any mention of category for trans athletes only. They would be competing in an “open” category, which also includes cis men. So not niche at all.
Ah I see. Thanks. So would there be a CIS men only category and a separate men's category that also includes all trans athletes regardless of gender? Or would the male category just be reclassified as "open" and anyone who isn't a CIS woman be categorized there? Either way, I think the likelihood of seeing trans athletes at a professional level has taken a hit with either decision, but I do also appreciate the need to protect the women's categories. I just wonder if taking each case on it's individual merit isn't still the best approach given the relatively low cases, and defining clear protocol in-regards to age-of-transition, etc.
Bit like chess then