First transgender athlete to compete at Olympics

[Dagnir]

In reference to the vegan analogy it's an innaccurate and deliberately emotive one in my opinion.


These are simply opposite views. Both parties are, in the eyes of their counterpart, misgendering the subject. This doesn't mean it's done through malice on either side and it's only seen as malicious because of the perspective from which it is being viewed.


Objectivity is often paramount to worthwhile discussion.


A devout christian might be offended by people saying God doesn't exist and we're related to primates but that doesn't mean the person saying it is being offensive.


(I'm not trying to call the trans right movement a religion btw, it's just a good analogy that demonstrates inflexibility of belief based on perspective)

Edited by Dagnir on Wednesday 30th June 16:09

[ZedLeg]

Dagnir said:

A devout christian might be offended by people saying God doesn't exist and we're related to primates but that doesn't mean the person saying it is being offensive.

This analogy goes back to treating trans people like an ideological discussion subject rather than people though. Which has been my whole issue with the you shouldn't discount people who misgender argument in the first place.

[Dagnir]

Randy Winkman said:

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.

Yup. The stereotypes have been constructed over years and years, hence the difficulty in breaking them down.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Dagnir said:

In reference to the vegan analogy it's an innaccurate and deliberately emotive one in my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I stand by my analogy. It is one party deliberately antagonising the other in the full knowledge that their behaviour will offend.

[Dagnir]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Dagnir said:

In reference to the vegan analogy it's an innaccurate and deliberately emotive one in my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I stand by my analogy. It is one party deliberately antagonising the other in the full knowledge that their behaviour will offend.

Oh, sometimes for sure but not simply for using a different pronoun. All that factually indicates is that they don't agree with your perspective.


You would need to establish intent....which is the tricky part.

[MidlandsBoy]

ZedLeg said:

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

He has had lots of meetings with Imam's and Muslim leaders. They aren't so easy to find on youtube anymore due to shadow banning of all things that don't show him in a bad light, but here is one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Moey4bJtv-U

[Dagnir]

ZedLeg said:

This analogy goes back to treating trans people like an ideological discussion subject rather than people though. Which has been my whole issue with the you shouldn't discount people who misgender argument in the first place.

That's essentially saying "I find that upsetting, so I'm not going to listen to you".


That's seems childish to me and certainly not a good foundation for worthwhile debate.....or any debate at all really.

[ZedLeg]

Dagnir said:

ZedLeg said:

This analogy goes back to treating trans people like an ideological discussion subject rather than people though. Which has been my whole issue with the you shouldn't discount people who misgender argument in the first place.

That's essentially saying "I find that upsetting, so I'm not going to listen to you".


That's seems childish to me and certainly not a good foundation for worthwhile debate.....or any debate at all really.

Is it? I don't think that's what I said.

Look, I've been around this kind of debate for long enough to know whether someone is arguing in good faith or not. I've got better things to do with my time than get into bad faith arguments so I don't waste my time on them.

Not every opinion is valid and it's ok to ignore some of them.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Dagnir said:

Oh, sometimes for sure but not simply for using a different pronoun. All that factually indicates is that they don't agree with your perspective.

Ok, I'm out. I really cannot be arsed with this.

[chrispmartha]

ZedLeg said:

Dagnir said:

ZedLeg said:

This analogy goes back to treating trans people like an ideological discussion subject rather than people though. Which has been my whole issue with the you shouldn't discount people who misgender argument in the first place.

That's essentially saying "I find that upsetting, so I'm not going to listen to you".


That's seems childish to me and certainly not a good foundation for worthwhile debate.....or any debate at all really.

Is it? I don't think that's what I said.

Look, I've been around this kind of debate for long enough to know whether someone is arguing in good faith or not. I've got better things to do with my time than get into bad faith arguments so I don't waste my time on them.

Not every opinion is valid and it's ok to ignore some of them.

I think we also have to take into account the posters who are misgendering, you can form an opinion on whether that person is misgendering as an insult from some of the content of their previous posts on the subject, it’s an internet forum and no one has a right to an answer to questions and indeed people can choose who thet want to enter into a ‘debate’ with.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

chrispmartha said:

I think we also have to take into account the posters who are misgendering, you can form an opinion on whether that person is misgendering as an insult from some of the content of their previous posts on the subject, it’s an internet forum and no one has a right to an answer to questions and indeed people can choose who thet want to enter into a ‘debate’ with.

Well, quite.

[gregs656]

Dagnir said:

Randy Winkman said:

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.

Yup. The stereotypes have been constructed over years and years, hence the difficulty in breaking them down.

The tricky thing is that for as long as we have recorded history we have people who have lived publicly as the opposite gender. There are examples throughout British history of two women marrying, one of them living as a man, and this not coming to light for decades. Or men living as women. I hesitate to use the descriptor 'trans gender', but I don't think it would be unreasonable to argue that was the case.

I agree with you, actually, that it would be more progressive in many ways if we could just get rid of gender stereotypes - but we do still have gender stereotypes and it is not clear to me that gender dysphoria would cease to exist without gender stereotypes (although it would be, I suppose, much less controversial to treat).

I would also reject this idea that someone *must* engage with someone of an opposing viewpoint or be treated as if they are being dogmatic or disingenuous in some way. It is trivial to think of an extreme example to show how silly this idea is, you can think of one your selves, or even not so extreme. I might choose not to engage with a flat earther, that doesn't mean their arguments all of a sudden become valid or interesting. In any case, it takes time and energy to engage in discussion and if it doesn't seem like it is going to be productive, or people are going to be rude, walking away is entirely justifiable.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

gregs656 said:

I would also reject this idea that someone *must* engage with someone of an opposing viewpoint or be treated as if they are being dogmatic or disingenuous in some way. It is trivial to think of an extreme example to show how silly this idea is, you can think of one your selves, or even not so extreme. I might choose not to engage with a flat earther, that doesn't mean their arguments all of a sudden become valid or interesting. In any case, it takes time and energy to engage in discussion and if it doesn't seem like it is going to be productive, or people are going to be rude, walking away is entirely justifiable.

You always put things more eloquently than I can.

[Gecko1978]

Dagnir said:

ZedLeg said:

This analogy goes back to treating trans people like an ideological discussion subject rather than people though. Which has been my whole issue with the you shouldn't discount people who misgender argument in the first place.

That's essentially saying "I find that upsetting, so I'm not going to listen to you".


That's seems childish to me and certainly not a good foundation for worthwhile debate.....or any debate at all really.

Its a tricky one this because being trans (i assume) is not an ideology but rather what you are. But a devout religious person might also argue the same. A trans person feels, believes they are something. Its an identity and most people are ok with that. The debate then falls down to how far do others go to accommodate your identity.

For some it has to be transwomen = women, for some its transwomen = a man and for others its somewhat more nuanced (its broadly where I sit).

I can disagree and still consider people, people who have rights and should be afforded respect and protection. I don't agree that you can decide you are something else and thus be that, it would require a change to every cell in your body. But I would not deny your rights to act as you idnetified outside of a small number of circumstances.

Sports - i had a look and if I loose 10kg but maintain my current lifting ability then I can compete with world class women (i would assume I would need to do more than just state I am female). I am a 42 year old fat bloke, so no way should I compete in a different group.

Medical treatment. If your a trans person your sex is going to have an impact on treatment and so your sex must be recognised. This doesn't mean you have to be demeaned it means you get best treatment.

Prisons. Trans people in prisons I assume are especially vulnerable and need to be protected the usual way is segregation. The idea someone woild choose to be trans to attack others is ludicrous as I would argue they are just a sex offender and should be segregated.

All other circumstances do what you like, but know there may be repercussions the law is there as a guide its not a magic protector. So if you look female and are in a club use the female loo. If you look like me, don't as despite your identity you put yourself at risk. Drunken night club goers screaming theres a man in the ladies is not going to end in a debate about trans rights its going to end in violence.

An thats really it we might not all like the outcomes Laurel Hubbard may get booed when she wins but its a chocice the IOC have made. We all have to look not just at rules but also outcomes and adapt accordingly.

[ZedLeg]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

gregs656 said:

I would also reject this idea that someone *must* engage with someone of an opposing viewpoint or be treated as if they are being dogmatic or disingenuous in some way. It is trivial to think of an extreme example to show how silly this idea is, you can think of one your selves, or even not so extreme. I might choose not to engage with a flat earther, that doesn't mean their arguments all of a sudden become valid or interesting. In any case, it takes time and energy to engage in discussion and if it doesn't seem like it is going to be productive, or people are going to be rude, walking away is entirely justifiable.

You always put things more eloquently than I can.

Exactly that.

[mpkayeuk]

gregs656 said:

I would also reject this idea that someone *must* engage with someone of an opposing viewpoint or be treated as if they are being dogmatic or disingenuous in some way. It is trivial to think of an extreme example to show how silly this idea is, you can think of one your selves, or even not so extreme. I might choose not to engage with a flat earther, that doesn't mean their arguments all of a sudden become valid or interesting. In any case, it takes time and energy to engage in discussion and if it doesn't seem like it is going to be productive, or people are going to be rude, walking away is entirely justifiable.

The viewpoints expressed in this thread are mainstream, and use acceptable language. Of course, you can pick and choose who you debate with, but if you choose not to, you should then accept that you're not prepared to listen to other ideas. There is no single arbiter of the truth, only a shared recognition arrived at through discourse, because the truth changes with time. The argument is not that people *must* engage, only that they understand the weakness in their position if they are not willing to do so. It also doesn't mean the other side's argument suddenly becomes valid. What it does mean is that both sides have lost an opportunity to learn (and so tolerate) the views of the other.

Personally I welcome a robust debate, and as I previously mentioned, risking offending someone is part and parcel of getting to the bottom of things, there's nothing wrong with that at all.

[gregs656]

mpkayeuk said:

The viewpoints expressed in this thread are mainstream, and use acceptable language. Of course, you can pick and choose who you debate with, but if you choose not to, you should then accept that you're not prepared to listen to other ideas. There is no single arbiter of the truth, only a shared recognition arrived at through discourse, because the truth changes with time. The argument is not that people *must* engage, only that they understand the weakness in their position if they are not willing to do so. It also doesn't mean the other side's argument suddenly becomes valid. What it does mean is that both sides have lost an opportunity to learn (and so tolerate) the views of the other.

Personally I welcome a robust debate, and as I previously mentioned, risking offending someone is part and parcel of getting to the bottom of things, there's nothing wrong with that at all.

I disagree, and maybe you haven't seen how many times this thread has been trimmed.

If someone doesn't want to discuss something with you, it doesn't necessarily mean anything that they don't want to discuss it with you. There is nothing more too it. If someone decides I will discuss this on these terms (which is totally standard for moderated debates for example) and people choose not to engage on those terms, that is their choice.

Edited by gregs656 on Wednesday 30th June 17:51

[Pugaris]

Gecko1978 said:

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.

Completely agree Fallon Fox should never have been allowed to compete fwiw.

[mick987]

ZedLeg said:

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.

Be honest there is no way you will every change your views no matter what anybody says, which is fair enough but when you say you are willing to changed your views you are not be truthful.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

mpkayeuk said:

The viewpoints expressed in this thread are mainstream, and use acceptable language. Of course, you can pick and choose who you debate with, but if you choose not to, you should then accept that you're not prepared to listen to other ideas. There is no single arbiter of the truth, only a shared recognition arrived at through discourse, because the truth changes with time. The argument is not that people *must* engage, only that they understand the weakness in their position if they are not willing to do so. It also doesn't mean the other side's argument suddenly becomes valid. What it does mean is that both sides have lost an opportunity to learn (and so tolerate) the views of the other.

Personally I welcome a robust debate, and as I previously mentioned, risking offending someone is part and parcel of getting to the bottom of things, there's nothing wrong with that at all.

If it were a dispassionate debate in a debating society, then yes, for sure.

But it isn't. It's posters saying that "people like me" should be excluded from changing areas because we represent a danger to little girls.
That trans women are "wrong" to want to be called by female pronouns. That what we know and experience is invalid.

mick987 said:

Be honest there is no way you will every change your views no matter what anybody says, which is fair enough but when you say you are willing to changed your views you are not be truthful.

My *views*? What, you are honestly expecting me to say "Wow, you know what? Maybe I *am* a man! Maybe I *do* want to molest underage girls! I have been convinced by reasoned debate that all my life experiences are invalid! I feel such a fool! Thank you for showing me that I *am* just a whiny little libtard snowflake! My life is changed."

Honestly, it's like telling a gay man that he should change his "views" and start fancying women like a man should.