World Athletics transgender women ban
Discussion
chrispmartha said:
SlimJim16v said:
It's the only sensible decision and should stop a lot of the negative press the trans community are getting.
Yeah right, that’s not going to happen.https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/24/sport/world-ath...
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/athle...
Rufus Stone said:
chrispmartha said:
SlimJim16v said:
It's the only sensible decision and should stop a lot of the negative press the trans community are getting.
Yeah right, that’s not going to happen.https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/24/sport/world-ath...
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/athle...
What about womens rights? Due to their nature they have historically been beaten down into 2nd class citizen status. Did men want to be women when they did the laundry all day and walked miles to fetch water and look after the children?
Eventually after much strife we have the modern world,then men decided top mooch in on the hard won space.
The only people agreeing its ok must surely be other men that would also rubberstamp any other thing you dreamed up.
Eventually after much strife we have the modern world,then men decided top mooch in on the hard won space.
The only people agreeing its ok must surely be other men that would also rubberstamp any other thing you dreamed up.
chrispmartha said:
Fundoreen said:
Did men want to be women when they did the laundry all day and walked miles to fetch water and look after the children?
Yes. And pretty much since humans have existed.Despite what is being portrayed it isn’t a new thing.
So yeah how do we know there were multiple genders through history
Gecko1978 said:
chrispmartha said:
Fundoreen said:
Did men want to be women when they did the laundry all day and walked miles to fetch water and look after the children?
Yes. And pretty much since humans have existed.Despite what is being portrayed it isn’t a new thing.
So yeah how do we know there were multiple genders through history
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_histor...
Gecko1978 said:
Genuine question what's the evidence to support this. I ask because a) I don't know b) most of history men an women's roles were heavily divided with life expectancy pre 1900 being about 35 (see pic) from wiki. So if you were broadly dead by 35 let's assume u began a family at what 16 that did not leave much time to work through your gender ideology my guess is the idea itself just never manifested. Of course people will have felt different but would there have been any way to express that. Also would trans men just be deemed homosexual (I want to avoid here going into the whole transition away the gay Tavistock scandal).
Not totally relevant, but single life expectancy numbers are primarily driven by how many people die in childhood. Life expectancy of 35 doesnt mean most people die at 35. People who get through childhood have always typically lived to what we would think of as relatively old age. There's a reason the bible talks about life span being three score years and ten. chrispmartha said:
Gecko1978 said:
chrispmartha said:
Fundoreen said:
Did men want to be women when they did the laundry all day and walked miles to fetch water and look after the children?
Yes. And pretty much since humans have existed.Despite what is being portrayed it isn’t a new thing.
So yeah how do we know there were multiple genders through history
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_histor...
Are issues being confused here about the past? The only thing im aware of is the amount of woman passing as men to try and have a career beyond the drudgery of a womans lot.
Why would someone limit their options in a pretty terrible era for female rights?
If there is evidence in not going to argue against it.
Why would someone limit their options in a pretty terrible era for female rights?
If there is evidence in not going to argue against it.
chrispmartha said:
Randy Winkman said:
Master Of Puppets said:
CoolHands said:
What will keir say
Who cares what he says, it's completely irrelevant to the decision made by World Athletics. They made a ruling that the competingwomen will no doubt be delighted to hear.
You can agree that it's up to the governing body of a sport to decide who is allowed to participate and still think that Transwomen are women - the two aren't mutually exclusive.
I've no issue with a governing body making these decisions.
Gender is a complex issue and the question that Kier Starmer was asked was a simplistic one and designed as a 'gotcha'
This is what happened.
"Speaking to LBC’s Nick Ferrari during a phone-in, Sir Keir, the Labour leader, was asked multiple times whether or not “a woman can have a penis”.
“I don’t think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run,” he said.
“What I want to see is a reform of the law as it is, but I am also an advocate of safe spaces for women and I want to have a discussion that is... Anybody who genuinely wants to find a way through this, I want to discuss that with. I do find that too many people – in my view – retreat or hold a position of which is intolerant of others.
“And that’s not picking on any individual at all, but I don’t like intolerance, I like open discussion.”
"Asked by a caller whether it was fair that transgender women were allowed to compete in women’s sports, Sir Keir said it was a matter “for the sporting bodies to decide for themselves”, acknowledging that there were “difficult questions”.
What's wrong with that answer?
He’s a man of no real option or conviction.
survivalist said:
chrispmartha said:
Randy Winkman said:
Master Of Puppets said:
CoolHands said:
What will keir say
Who cares what he says, it's completely irrelevant to the decision made by World Athletics. They made a ruling that the competingwomen will no doubt be delighted to hear.
You can agree that it's up to the governing body of a sport to decide who is allowed to participate and still think that Transwomen are women - the two aren't mutually exclusive.
I've no issue with a governing body making these decisions.
Gender is a complex issue and the question that Kier Starmer was asked was a simplistic one and designed as a 'gotcha'
This is what happened.
"Speaking to LBC’s Nick Ferrari during a phone-in, Sir Keir, the Labour leader, was asked multiple times whether or not “a woman can have a penis”.
“I don’t think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run,” he said.
“What I want to see is a reform of the law as it is, but I am also an advocate of safe spaces for women and I want to have a discussion that is... Anybody who genuinely wants to find a way through this, I want to discuss that with. I do find that too many people – in my view – retreat or hold a position of which is intolerant of others.
“And that’s not picking on any individual at all, but I don’t like intolerance, I like open discussion.”
"Asked by a caller whether it was fair that transgender women were allowed to compete in women’s sports, Sir Keir said it was a matter “for the sporting bodies to decide for themselves”, acknowledging that there were “difficult questions”.
What's wrong with that answer?
He’s a man of no real option or conviction.
survivalist said:
chrispmartha said:
Randy Winkman said:
Master Of Puppets said:
CoolHands said:
What will keir say
Who cares what he says, it's completely irrelevant to the decision made by World Athletics. They made a ruling that the competingwomen will no doubt be delighted to hear.
You can agree that it's up to the governing body of a sport to decide who is allowed to participate and still think that Transwomen are women - the two aren't mutually exclusive.
I've no issue with a governing body making these decisions.
Gender is a complex issue and the question that Kier Starmer was asked was a simplistic one and designed as a 'gotcha'
This is what happened.
"Speaking to LBC’s Nick Ferrari during a phone-in, Sir Keir, the Labour leader, was asked multiple times whether or not “a woman can have a penis”.
“I don’t think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run,” he said.
“What I want to see is a reform of the law as it is, but I am also an advocate of safe spaces for women and I want to have a discussion that is... Anybody who genuinely wants to find a way through this, I want to discuss that with. I do find that too many people – in my view – retreat or hold a position of which is intolerant of others.
“And that’s not picking on any individual at all, but I don’t like intolerance, I like open discussion.”
"Asked by a caller whether it was fair that transgender women were allowed to compete in women’s sports, Sir Keir said it was a matter “for the sporting bodies to decide for themselves”, acknowledging that there were “difficult questions”.
What's wrong with that answer?
He’s a man of no real option or conviction.
Biological men should not be competing in women’s sport.
I remember watching the Olympics when I was about 25 and seeing that I would place mid pack in some of the Women’s 100m heats.
I'm a normal bloke who smoked a pack of cigarettes per day and can't run very fast and yet I could run faster than some of the women who have put in all the hours to make it to the Olympics.
I remember watching the Olympics when I was about 25 and seeing that I would place mid pack in some of the Women’s 100m heats.
I'm a normal bloke who smoked a pack of cigarettes per day and can't run very fast and yet I could run faster than some of the women who have put in all the hours to make it to the Olympics.
Fundoreen said:
Are issues being confused here about the past? The only thing im aware of is the amount of woman passing as men to try and have a career beyond the drudgery of a womans lot.
Why would someone limit their options in a pretty terrible era for female rights?
If there is evidence in not going to argue against it.
It went both ways though, as it does now. Queer City is an interesting book on the history of queer London. The language around these topics has changed a lot, of course. Why would someone limit their options in a pretty terrible era for female rights?
If there is evidence in not going to argue against it.
E63eeeeee... said:
Gecko1978 said:
Genuine question what's the evidence to support this. I ask because a) I don't know b) most of history men an women's roles were heavily divided with life expectancy pre 1900 being about 35 (see pic) from wiki. So if you were broadly dead by 35 let's assume u began a family at what 16 that did not leave much time to work through your gender ideology my guess is the idea itself just never manifested. Of course people will have felt different but would there have been any way to express that. Also would trans men just be deemed homosexual (I want to avoid here going into the whole transition away the gay Tavistock scandal).
Not totally relevant, but single life expectancy numbers are primarily driven by how many people die in childhood. Life expectancy of 35 doesnt mean most people die at 35. People who get through childhood have always typically lived to what we would think of as relatively old age. There's a reason the bible talks about life span being three score years and ten. People still frequently died in adulthood from illnesses that wouldn't kill them now, a particular example being women in childbirth, but past very low life expectancies were driven by very high infant mortality. One third of all children born in the UK in 1800 would not live to see their fifth birthday.
gamefreaks said:
Biological men should not be competing in women’s sport.
I remember watching the Olympics when I was about 25 and seeing that I would place mid pack in some of the Women’s 100m heats.
I'm a normal bloke who smoked a pack of cigarettes per day and can't run very fast and yet I could run faster than some of the women who have put in all the hours to make it to the Olympics.
I basically agree. But it is complicated by trans-women who have undergone treatment pre-puberty and have never been "men" plus intersex people. But basically, I do agree. I remember watching the Olympics when I was about 25 and seeing that I would place mid pack in some of the Women’s 100m heats.
I'm a normal bloke who smoked a pack of cigarettes per day and can't run very fast and yet I could run faster than some of the women who have put in all the hours to make it to the Olympics.
Kes Arevo said:
Giving children treatment prior to puberty to avoid biological reality is frankly heinous.
What other medical conditions do you suppose we withhold treatment for in hopes to not 'avoid biological reality'?Cancer treatment? Cleft palate? Are childhood immunisation heinous for denying the 'biological reality ' of pertussis and polio?
Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition. Denying people treatment for it because the treatment doesn't fit in with your ideology is cruel.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 25th March 09:09
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff