First transgender athlete to compete at Olympics

[mpkayeuk]

ZedLeg said:

mpkayeuk said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

mpkayeuk said:

BTW, you are certainly prepared to offend me in this debate with your thinly veiled accusation of wilful point avoidance.

Oh, come now. Really?

Absolutely, and you are 100% right to do that, because you want to get to the bottom of what we're discussing. But I hope you can accept the key point being made, debate sometimes means making the other side uncomfortable in an effort to reach a common understanding.

I don't disagree with that but when it comes to misgendering it always strikes me as people knowingly saying something that they think will hurt or offend just to get a reaction. It's petty and juvenile.

Try to look at it from the point of view of someone who is a biological fundamentalist. Are they doing that deliberately because they want to hurt and offend? Or are they doing it knowing they risk causing offence, but because it is what they honestly believe to be true? A belief they hold in common with the majority of the UK, and that they can express using language that's perfectly acceptable in a classroom. Alternatively, how does this differ from the Mohammed cartoon incident in Batley?

Edited by mpkayeuk on Wednesday 30th June 12:53

[chrispmartha]

mpkayeuk said:

A belief they hold in common with the majority of the UK

Have you any proof of this the pols Ive seen suggest that when asked is a trans woman a woman or is a trans man a man, the majority actually agree with that statement.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

mpkayeuk said:

Try to look at it from the point of view of someone who is a biological fundamentalist. Are they doing that to deliberately cause hurt and offence, or in the knowledge that they risk causing offence, but because it is what they honestly believe to be true? A belief they hold in common with the majority of the UK, and that they can express using language that's perfectly acceptable in a classroom. Alternatively, how does this differ from the Mohammed cartoon incident in Batley?

I'm going to be shot down in flames and derided for posting this, but maybe it illustrates the point. And maybe it doesn't. But it's certainly how it feels sometimes,,,

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Wednesday 30th June 13:25

[ZedLeg]

mpkayeuk said:

ZedLeg said:

mpkayeuk said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

mpkayeuk said:

BTW, you are certainly prepared to offend me in this debate with your thinly veiled accusation of wilful point avoidance.

Oh, come now. Really?

Absolutely, and you are 100% right to do that, because you want to get to the bottom of what we're discussing. But I hope you can accept the key point being made, debate sometimes means making the other side uncomfortable in an effort to reach a common understanding.

I don't disagree with that but when it comes to misgendering it always strikes me as people knowingly saying something that they think will hurt or offend just to get a reaction. It's petty and juvenile.

Try to look at it from the point of view of someone who is a biological fundamentalist. Are they doing that deliberately because they want to hurt and offend? Or are they doing it knowing they risk causing offence, but because it is what they honestly believe to be true? A belief they hold in common with the majority of the UK, and that they can express using language that's perfectly acceptable in a classroom. Alternatively, how does this differ from the Mohammed cartoon incident in Batley?

Edited by mpkayeuk on Wednesday 30th June 12:53

It depends what you're looking for. If you're just doing an academic study of the language or something like that then it would be expected that you'd be exposed to stuff that might upset you. If you're trying to actually talk about the issues that trans people face then I don't really see the point in trying to discuss it with such a fundamentalist.

You wouldn't ask Tommy Robinson to a discussion about the issues the UK muslim community face, would you?

This is coming close to something that's often discussed within the LGBT community but never seems to be brought up with the population at large.

A lot of the discussion around these issues tends to get treated like an academic debate on ideology, without considering that there are real people who's lives are negatively impacted on a daily basis because of them.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

ZedLeg said:

A lot of the discussion around these issues tends to get treated like an academic debate on ideology, without considering that there are real people who's lives are negatively impacted on a daily basis because of them.

Absolutely. It's the main reason that I finally came out as trans on one of the earlier transgender threads, because it was a bunch of people talking *about* trans people as some kind of academic debate (and saying some really horrific and ignorant things too, as you can imagine) and I felt it was important that people saw us as real people, rather than some abstract concept, and talked *with* us rather than *about* us.

As someone who joined PH in 2001 and who was known to a lot of these people, I hope it was a revelation of sorts. Certainly it changed the tone of the debate somewhat.

[Dagnir]

ZedLeg said:

It depends what you're looking for. If you're just doing an academic study of the language or something like that then it would be expected that you'd be exposed to stuff that might upset you. If you're trying to actually talk about the issues that trans people face then I don't really see the point in trying to discuss it with such a fundamentalist.

You wouldn't ask Tommy Robinson to a discussion about the issues the UK muslim community face, would you?

This is coming close to something that's often discussed within the LGBT community but never seems to be brought up with the population at large.

A lot of the discussion around these issues tends to get treated like an academic debate on ideology, without considering that there are real people who's lives are negatively impacted on a daily basis because of them.

Once again demonstrating how closed minded and unwilling to engage with differing opinions you are, purely because you disagree with them.


How can you not see it?!?

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Dagnir said:

ZedLeg said:

It depends what you're looking for. If you're just doing an academic study of the language or something like that then it would be expected that you'd be exposed to stuff that might upset you. If you're trying to actually talk about the issues that trans people face then I don't really see the point in trying to discuss it with such a fundamentalist.

You wouldn't ask Tommy Robinson to a discussion about the issues the UK muslim community face, would you?

This is coming close to something that's often discussed within the LGBT community but never seems to be brought up with the population at large.

A lot of the discussion around these issues tends to get treated like an academic debate on ideology, without considering that there are real people who's lives are negatively impacted on a daily basis because of them.

Once again demonstrating how closed minded and unwilling to engage with differing opinions you are, purely because you disagree with them.


How can you not see it?!?

Blimey, it's almost as if you didn't bother to read and digest anything ZedLeg wrote, despite even quoting it.

[mpkayeuk]

ZedLeg said:

It depends what you're looking for. If you're just doing an academic study of the language or something like that then it would be expected that you'd be exposed to stuff that might upset you. If you're trying to actually talk about the issues that trans people face then I don't really see the point in trying to discuss it with such a fundamentalist.

You wouldn't ask Tommy Robinson to a discussion about the issues the UK muslim community face, would you?

This is coming close to something that's often discussed within the LGBT community but never seems to be brought up with the population at large.

A lot of the discussion around these issues tends to get treated like an academic debate on ideology, without considering that there are real people who's lives are negatively impacted on a daily basis because of them.

We are not talking about a uni-variate analysis. Why would you speak to just one person when trying to get a balanced view on how people think and feel about something? The article we are talking about was referred to amongst a lot of other information in this thread, not by itself.

Regarding Robinson, I would highly recommend you watch his Oxford Union address, it might surprise you.

[ZedLeg]

Dagnir said:

ZedLeg said:

It depends what you're looking for. If you're just doing an academic study of the language or something like that then it would be expected that you'd be exposed to stuff that might upset you. If you're trying to actually talk about the issues that trans people face then I don't really see the point in trying to discuss it with such a fundamentalist.

You wouldn't ask Tommy Robinson to a discussion about the issues the UK muslim community face, would you?

This is coming close to something that's often discussed within the LGBT community but never seems to be brought up with the population at large.

A lot of the discussion around these issues tends to get treated like an academic debate on ideology, without considering that there are real people who's lives are negatively impacted on a daily basis because of them.

Once again demonstrating how closed minded and unwilling to engage with differing opinions you are, purely because you disagree with them.


How can you not see it?!?

I'm willing to discuss different opinions but there has to be limits. If there's no chance of agreement or compromise then what's the point?

Just setting myself up to be misrepresented as has happened in a lot of comments in this thread.

[Dagnir]

ZedLeg said:

I'm willing to discuss different opinions but there has to be limits. If there's no chance of agreement or compromise then what's the point?


Just setting myself up to be misrepresented as has happened in a lot of comments in this thread.

But you're deciding that on your own terms before you've even engaged.


You don't know what other people are thinking, so when you are saying there's no chance of agreement or compromise, you can only be referring to your own stance. You believe that you can't get them to agree with you, so why bother.


This in turn must mean you're unwilling to change your views before you have even engaged in the discussion.


You're making assumptions from your own emotional perspective and hiding behind them because "they can't possibly be reasoned with" or "they're offensive", so their opinions aren't worthy of your time.


It's entirely your choice to be like that but don't pretend it's not a closed minded and prejudicial attitude.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Dagnir said:

But you're deciding that on your own terms before you've even engaged.


You don't know what other people are thinking, so when you are saying there's no chance of agreement or compromise, you can only be referring to your own stance. You believe that you can't get them to agree with you, so why bother.


This in turn must mean you're unwilling to change your views before you have even engaged in the discussion.


You're making assumptions from your own emotional perspective and hiding behind them because "they can't possibly be reasoned with" or "they're offensive", so their opinions aren't worthy of your time.


It's entirely your choice to be like that but don't pretend it's not a closed minded and prejudicial attitude.

I can see where both of you are coming on this, if it helps.

But bringing this back to the thread, rather than talking in general terms, if someone is going to dogmatically refer to a trans woman as 'he' then it's a fair indication that they are not up for a debate but instead want an argument. And I think ZedLeg is simply saying "I can't be arsed to engage with you on those terms because I don't see the point".

And, frankly, having been through the revolving door of these threads so many times that my head spins, I can sympathise.

[ZedLeg]

What clockwork cupcake said.

I am fairly sure of my views but I’m always willing to discuss and change them when evidence suggests that it’s needed.

However in the context of this thread, my mind is very unlikely to be changed by somebody who comes straight in and starts calling trans women he. Our viewpoints are too far apart.

[mpkayeuk]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

if someone is going to dogmatically refer to a trans woman as 'he' then it's a fair indication that they are not up for a debate but instead want an argument.

It's really not, but it is a fair indication that you can't tolerate opposing ideas, which is the literal definition of dogma.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

mpkayeuk said:

It's really not, but it is a fair indication that you can't tolerate opposing ideas, which is the literal definition of dogma.

If you say so.

Personally, to me, it feels like shoving a raw steak in the face of a Vegetarian and saying "I'm really open to having a debate. Why won't you engage with me?"

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Wednesday 30th June 14:31

[Pugaris]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

If you say so.

Personally, to me, it feels like shoving a raw steak in the face of a Vegetarian and saying "I'm really open to having a debate. Why won't you engage with me?"

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Wednesday 30th June 14:31

I'm vegan and the one who started this whole debate by refusing to engage with someone who continually referred to Fallon Fox as a "he" and that is exactly what it feels like.

[Gecko1978]

Pugaris said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

If you say so.

Personally, to me, it feels like shoving a raw steak in the face of a Vegetarian and saying "I'm really open to having a debate. Why won't you engage with me?"

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Wednesday 30th June 14:31

I'm vegan and the one who started this whole debate by refusing to engage with someone who continually referred to Fallon Fox as a "he" and that is exactly what it feels like.

I think sadly the debate moved way off should Laurel Hubbard compete in the Olympics in the womens team, to should transwomen be assulted in toilets in nightclubs because they clearly stand up to pee an if you don't agree you're mad init....or something like that.

I am am grateful that many from the pro trans side of the argument chose to debate this but sadly it ended up with a lot of mud slinging.

Re Fallon Fox as I am aware she no longer fights after her defeat. My view was an is having watcher both her wins and victories that she should never have competed. She was a risk to other competitors and her defeat involved being pinned down an punched repeatedly in the face even after the bell went. Thats not a healthy outcome for any party. An that sort of somes this all up for me, whats a healthy outcome for the majority in sport it seems the minority might be excluded, in day to day life public bathrooms etc they might be included.

One size does not fit all and we all have to share this planet so compromise is the best way forward.

[ZedLeg]

Gecko1978 said:

An that sort of somes this all up for me, whats a healthy outcome for the majority in sport it seems the minority might be excluded, in day to day life public bathrooms etc they might be included.

One size does not fit all and we all have to share this planet so compromise is the best way forward.

To my eyes saying all transwomen should be barred from competing isn't compromise.

I'd rather let the governing bodies of sports do their research and decide for themselves whether transwomen can compete fairly and safely. While this might lead to a period of time where we'll look back and decide that some people were treated unfairly, I think it would be the most progressive way in the long term.

[Gecko1978]

ZedLeg said:

To my eyes saying all transwomen should be barred from competing isn't compromise.

I'd rather let the governing bodies of sports do their research and decide for themselves whether transwomen can compete fairly and safely. While this might lead to a period of time where we'll look back and decide that some people were treated unfairly, I think it would be the most progressive way in the long term.

An that is where we disagree but its ok becuase its just a debate. Taking transwomen as a whole my view is in most circumstances they can be afforded same options as women. In some casese the difference means its not optimal. An as we have to do the best in most cases not individually then for sports I sit on the "should play with other transwomen" fence.

But governing bodies will decide so really you have the result you want and I am free to disagree but I have to accept it.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

I think sport is a difficult one, and not something I feel like I have any definitive answers to. Or even a strong opinion on.

In a way, it's not dissimilar to the Paralympics and debates on whether you are "disabled enough" or not.

We can debate whether or not the governing body of any sport has got their rules and regulations correct, but at the end of the day they are the final authority, so really that's what it comes down to.

(Yes, I accept the arguments put forward on the boxing and the ramifications of the governing body getting it wrong)

[Randy Winkman]

Dagnir said:

Randy Winkman said:

I think that the issue about reinforcing gender stereotypes is that we (unfortunately) live in world where they continue to exist. Perhaps most transgender people would prefer there to be no stereotypes, no labelling of "men" this and "female" that - but it's not how things are right now.

Anyway, I think the IOC will alter their approach when they are shown it doesn't work with regards impact on women's sport. What to though I've no idea.

But if we continue to reinforce them, that won't ever change.


We need to find the correct long-term solution and not just the easiest or least emotionally charged one.


We need to get to the stage where we call everyone by their factually and biologically correct pronouns but people are free to behave however they want without the need to conform to societal norms.


That way no one is forced to try and be something they aren't or act in a certain way and no one can get offended by pronouns, as they just refer to a biological fact and nothing else.


It's an idealistic solution for sure but it's where we should be aiming in my opinion.

I basically agree but don't think that transgender people are a big influencer when it comes to gender stereotypes. They are a tiny minority that's on the receiving end.