Discussion
Gecko1978 said:
Actually unlike say orientation there maybe an element of choice given the many gender identities available. This is not to say for all it is a choice. But for some there will be an element of conciouse affirmation. So today I am a man tomorrow I am non binary the next day I am Gender Fae for example. Do we have any level of control over that I have no idea but given its psychological rather than biological there may be a choice for some.
Personally, I think being trans is a form of developmental disorder and suspect that the whole collection of non-binary identities are socio-political statements. KarlMac said:
It’s also fair to point out there a lot of sports where physical performance isn’t as critical where the field is mixed, chess is one that comes to mind immediately but I’m sure you could list a lot more.
I can’t wait for someone to self identify and then enter women’s boxing (or other combat sports) and nearly murder someone.
There have been two in MMA, unsurprisingly they were quite controversialI can’t wait for someone to self identify and then enter women’s boxing (or other combat sports) and nearly murder someone.
https://www.givemesport.com/1811584-transgender-mm...
A former MMA fighter said
"“I’m not here to talk about transgender rights, you can identify as whatever you want. But I do believe that if you’re a woman that feels trapped in a man’s body, there are certain advantages that you should have to give up.
“If you have the body of a man, competing against girls or women when you’re using your body to beat someone unconscious, has to be one of those things you sacrifice.”
2xChevrons said:
GroundZero said:
And two that "assigning" a "gender" to a person is contradictory to the definition of the term used by activists, in that its the individual who chooses, which by default makes it "non assignable" by others.
On this point specifically (aside from the fact that the RCM seems to be using 'sex' when it seems like it should be using 'gender'): I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. The whole 'assigned [gender] at birth' thing is precisely because it acknowledges that gender identity and presentation is down to the individual. You were born with the physical characteristics of a male, so from the moment you were born you were - officially and socially - assigned by everyone else the gender of male/boy/man (however you want to define it). It wasn't the decision you made (because you don't even have self-awareness as a newborn, let alone the social tools and experiences to form your own identity), it was one that others made for you. The 'assigned at birth' phrase is an attempt to acknowledge that and recognise that your biological characteristics don't necessarily have to square with your social identity.
'Mis-gendering' is going against the person's own choice of gender identity, not society at large's.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 30th June 10:01
It therefore requires a common base from which to support a particular definition, from which a sound argument can be put forward. This is usually scientific or legal precedence that does this, but what we see with numerous political activist agendas these days, is that there is no common base, no wider consensus, only adversary arguments of non acceptance from any particular side.
It still remains a fact though that sex can not be "assigned", it is observed and then recorded.
If terming it under "gender" then we have no common base by which this term is now defined by some, nor how it can be used rationally. It used to be defined under biology, as an interchangeable word for sex, but with political activism some now see it under a new social construct meaning, and as such this now has no rational meaning as far as I can make out. Especially if the term 'gender' is to represent something fluid/analogue, and also something that can change when the individual feels like it, be that once per life or numerous times per week.
I just don't see how this term or definition can be used rationally. So with that its pointless me trying to reply or counter what you say above, and this falls back to the point I make that the whole thing is a mess. (not your reply, but the whole issue at large).
Where institutions, activists and even the legal system are in an internal morality fight with themselves in attempts to tick all the social justice boxes of equality, inclusivity, fairness, etc. , all at the same time. This is something that is never going to be possible in many cases due to the fact that all the different political groupings of people all have their own set of tick-boxes and many of these are likely to oppose or overlap. Whereas one group demands fairness another demands inclusivity, and in the case of sport, these tick boxes oppose each other if males are allowed to compete against females.
GroundZero said:
If terming it under "gender" then we have no common base by which this term is now defined by some, nor how it can be used rationally. It used to be defined under biology, as an interchangeable word for sex, but with political activism some now see it under a new social construct meaning, and as such this now has no rational meaning as far as I can make out. Especially if the term 'gender' is to represent something fluid/analogue, and also something that can change when the individual feels like it, be that once per life or numerous times per week.
I don't quite see this confusion or wide-ranging definition that you seem to. The definitions of 'sex' (biological) and 'gender' (social) have been used in consistently in clinical, anthropological, sociological and linguistic contexts for well over 60 years and were being discussed and codified for decades before that. I was taught those definitions at school over 20 years ago. And the concepts that your social role as a man or women is separate from your biological characteristics as a male or female go back centuries, if not millennia, in Western society - even when social norms dictated that the two had to 'match', it was understood that they weren't intrinsically linked. That's just basic observation. That's why we have gender roles and why they are (to a greater or lesser extent depending on the time period) enforced rather than just happening through basic biological function and instinct. 2xChevrons said:
On this point specifically (aside from the fact that the RCM seems to be using 'sex' when it seems like it should be using 'gender'): I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. The whole 'assigned [gender] at birth' thing is precisely because it acknowledges that gender identity and presentation is down to the individual. You were born with the physical characteristics of a male, so from the moment you were born you were - officially and socially - assigned by everyone else the gender of male/boy/man (however you want to define it). It wasn't the decision you made (because you don't even have self-awareness as a newborn, let alone the social tools and experiences to form your own identity), it was one that others made for you.
The 'assigned at birth' phrase is an attempt to acknowledge that and recognise that your biological characteristics don't necessarily have to square with your social identity.
'Mis-gendering' is going against the person's own choice of gender identity, not society at large's.
Exactly. The 'assigned at birth' phrase is an attempt to acknowledge that and recognise that your biological characteristics don't necessarily have to square with your social identity.
'Mis-gendering' is going against the person's own choice of gender identity, not society at large's.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 30th June 10:01
2xChevrons said:
I don't quite see this confusion or wide-ranging definition that you seem to. The definitions of 'sex' (biological) and 'gender' (social) have been used in consistently in clinical, anthropological, sociological and linguistic contexts for well over 60 years and were being discussed and codified for decades before that. I was taught those definitions at school over 20 years ago. And the concepts that your social role as a man or women is separate from your biological characteristics as a male or female go back centuries, if not millennia, in Western society - even when social norms dictated that the two had to 'match', it was understood that they weren't intrinsically linked. That's just basic observation. That's why we have gender roles and why they are (to a greater or lesser extent depending on the time period) enforced rather than just happening through basic biological function and instinct.
As mentioned there is very little consensus in society on what the latest social construct terms mean, especially around the term "gender" and how activist use it these days, and this is why the debate goes on and on.I think this thread has shown that most are now accepting that there is no biological link in the term as it is used by activists. And this should at least go someway to making the debate easier to follow.
otolith said:
Personally, I think being trans is a form of developmental disorder and suspect that the whole collection of non-binary identities are socio-political statements.
I think being trans is a medical status. I think desiring to be trans is a form of mental illness from desperately unhappy people whio think that running away from who they are will magically transform their world for the better.I'm with Gecko on the whole 'observed/recorded rather than "assigned" at birth' idea.
Scottish civil servants told biological sex is a 'falsehood'
(Screengrabs of some of the terms in the 'trans language primer' sent to Scottish Government staff)
Wanting equality or pushing an agenda?
article said:
Women who question transgender ideology have been branded “farts” as part of equalities training offered to civil servants in Nicola Sturgeon’s Government, it has emerged.
Workers who attended a workplace “trans 101” course were told the term was an acronym for “feminism appropriating ridiculous transphobe” and that women who oppose inclusivity measures were part of a “trans hate group”.
Staff who attended the training session, run by the Scottish Government’s taxpayer-funded LGBTI+ internal staff network, were also urged to study claims that biological sex is a “falsehood” invented by the medical profession to “reinforce white supremacy and gender oppression”.
...
Civil servants were directed to claims that so-called “gender critical” women or “terfs” (trans exclusionary radical feminists) “hate all trans people” and have “an unhealthy fascination with trans kids”.
The email including a link to a dictionary of terms called a “trans language primer” was sent to staff by a senior official from the Scottish Digital Academy, a Scottish Government body which delivers training across the public sector.
LinkyWorkers who attended a workplace “trans 101” course were told the term was an acronym for “feminism appropriating ridiculous transphobe” and that women who oppose inclusivity measures were part of a “trans hate group”.
Staff who attended the training session, run by the Scottish Government’s taxpayer-funded LGBTI+ internal staff network, were also urged to study claims that biological sex is a “falsehood” invented by the medical profession to “reinforce white supremacy and gender oppression”.
...
Civil servants were directed to claims that so-called “gender critical” women or “terfs” (trans exclusionary radical feminists) “hate all trans people” and have “an unhealthy fascination with trans kids”.
The email including a link to a dictionary of terms called a “trans language primer” was sent to staff by a senior official from the Scottish Digital Academy, a Scottish Government body which delivers training across the public sector.
(Screengrabs of some of the terms in the 'trans language primer' sent to Scottish Government staff)
Wanting equality or pushing an agenda?
Edited by g3org3y on Sunday 3rd July 10:49
Oh dear, who would have thought Bette Midler was such a bigot apparently?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10982031/...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10982031/...
KarlMac said:
It’s also fair to point out there a lot of sports where physical performance isn’t as critical where the field is mixed, chess is one that comes to mind immediately but I’m sure you could list a lot more.
Yes, chess. Played in the mind. But there is still a seperate prize for women.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_World_Ches...
Are womens brains inferior? If not, why do they need their own category in chess?
Another one is darts. Not aware of any physical advantage men have for throwing darts. But seperate competition for women.
https://dartsnews.com/pdc-womens-series
Bridge as well.
http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/european-na...
Surely, if we want equality then any game or sport where physical speed, strength, and stamina are not critical should be one category - open?
Supercilious Sid said:
Oh dear, who would have thought Bette Midler was such a bigot apparently?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10982031/...
Are you saying that she shouldn't freely voice her opinions on the subject matter? (just wondering why you chose the word bigot to use)https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10982031/...
Also turning the tables so to speak, would a person be a bigot if they held a minority opinion, such as gender ideology, whereby they demonstrate they are intolerant of other's opinions?
GroundZero said:
Supercilious Sid said:
Oh dear, who would have thought Bette Midler was such a bigot apparently?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10982031/...
Are you saying that she shouldn't freely voice her opinions on the subject matter? (just wondering why you chose the word bigot to use)https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10982031/...
Also turning the tables so to speak, would a person be a bigot if they held a minority opinion, such as gender ideology, whereby they demonstrate they are intolerant of other's opinions?
Oh dear! Macy Gray is a hater as well!
At 6:50. Has the utter gall to say that "just because you go change your parts doesn't make you a woman"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-stand-with-m...
At 6:50. Has the utter gall to say that "just because you go change your parts doesn't make you a woman"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-stand-with-m...
British Triathlon have taken a move I suspect a lot of sports will end up doing by recategorizing 'Mens' and 'Womens' sports to 'Womens' and 'Open' where they can't be accused of not being inclusive as absolutely any gender; men, women, trans men, trans women, intersex and any others can enter the Open section but only people who are female at birth can enter the 'Womens' section.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/artic...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/artic...
Definitely seems like we’re at a turning point with this madness. A few mainstream figures have managed to point out the madness without getting fired or censored.
Now sports organisations are able to get back to normal and athletes seem more confident to speak out and question this nonsense about people born male competing in women's sports.
The last few years has been the definition of give and inch and take a mile. Good people from all communities genuinely trying to make better lives and understanding for minorities and women and then people went to the absolute extreme. Extremists genuinely wanting to allow people born male to compete in female strength and combat sport have done the trans community a horrific disservice.
It needed dragging back to the centre, away from the lunatics.
Now sports organisations are able to get back to normal and athletes seem more confident to speak out and question this nonsense about people born male competing in women's sports.
The last few years has been the definition of give and inch and take a mile. Good people from all communities genuinely trying to make better lives and understanding for minorities and women and then people went to the absolute extreme. Extremists genuinely wanting to allow people born male to compete in female strength and combat sport have done the trans community a horrific disservice.
It needed dragging back to the centre, away from the lunatics.
Biggy Stardust said:
otolith said:
Personally, I think being trans is a form of developmental disorder and suspect that the whole collection of non-binary identities are socio-political statements.
I think being trans is a medical status. I think desiring to be trans is a form of mental illness from desperately unhappy people whio think that running away from who they are will magically transform their world for the better.I'm with Gecko on the whole 'observed/recorded rather than "assigned" at birth' idea.
RobbieTheTruth said:
Definitely seems like we’re at a turning point with this madness. A few mainstream figures have managed to point out the madness without getting fired or censored.
Now sports organisations are able to get back to normal and athletes seem more confident to speak out and question this nonsense about people born male competing in women's sports.
The last few years has been the definition of give and inch and take a mile. Good people from all communities genuinely trying to make better lives and understanding for minorities and women and then people went to the absolute extreme. Extremists genuinely wanting to allow people born male to compete in female strength and combat sport have done the trans community a horrific disservice.
It needed dragging back to the centre, away from the lunatics.
I think the result of the Maya Forstater case yesterday, is heartening for those of us who want to see common sense prevail. There are genuine transsexuals and transgender people who have been harmed by the actions of the extremist TRA's, but it is the 51% of the population - women - who have been harmed the most by the extremists.Now sports organisations are able to get back to normal and athletes seem more confident to speak out and question this nonsense about people born male competing in women's sports.
The last few years has been the definition of give and inch and take a mile. Good people from all communities genuinely trying to make better lives and understanding for minorities and women and then people went to the absolute extreme. Extremists genuinely wanting to allow people born male to compete in female strength and combat sport have done the trans community a horrific disservice.
It needed dragging back to the centre, away from the lunatics.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929
andyA700 said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Definitely seems like we’re at a turning point with this madness. A few mainstream figures have managed to point out the madness without getting fired or censored.
Now sports organisations are able to get back to normal and athletes seem more confident to speak out and question this nonsense about people born male competing in women's sports.
The last few years has been the definition of give and inch and take a mile. Good people from all communities genuinely trying to make better lives and understanding for minorities and women and then people went to the absolute extreme. Extremists genuinely wanting to allow people born male to compete in female strength and combat sport have done the trans community a horrific disservice.
It needed dragging back to the centre, away from the lunatics.
I think the result of the Maya Forstater case yesterday, is heartening for those of us who want to see common sense prevail. There are genuine transsexuals and transgender people who have been harmed by the actions of the extremist TRA's, but it is the 51% of the population - women - who have been harmed the most by the extremists.Now sports organisations are able to get back to normal and athletes seem more confident to speak out and question this nonsense about people born male competing in women's sports.
The last few years has been the definition of give and inch and take a mile. Good people from all communities genuinely trying to make better lives and understanding for minorities and women and then people went to the absolute extreme. Extremists genuinely wanting to allow people born male to compete in female strength and combat sport have done the trans community a horrific disservice.
It needed dragging back to the centre, away from the lunatics.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929
The judgement was based on a sanitised and early version of her behaviour which was found by the panel not to amount to offensive, bearing in mind her EAT had protected her belief on the basis that everything was protected short of eliminationist and Natzisum. Its likely her later manifestation of gender critical beliefs would have failed the grainger test as she has subsequently called for the elimination of trans people.
Forstater is also only an ET and it doesn't sit right under Mackereth which found that it was lawful to let go of an employee for failing to follow established policy (requiring him not to misgender trans people) because of their (religious) belief, Mackereth is a higher and binding court and policies were something CDG didn't have. Forstater will be an outlier case which has already been largely neutered by Mackereth.
The takeaway for HR departments is not that transphobia is ok in the work place its that good policies on social media and behaviour are essential. Any company who is on the other end of an EA from a trans employee for letting a Forstater mk 2 continue will find out quickly that trans people are a protected group also.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff