Transgender MTF picked for Olympics weightlifting

Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2004
Posts
8,854
Location
Sunny Torbaydos
They weren't for thousands of years it is an entirely modern mess that has been pushed by extremists.

It is polite to call a trans person by their preferred pro nouns but it doesn't change biological reality. Pretending sex is a continuity rather than largely binary with a tiny proportion of genetic anomalies is a deliberate attempt to push this ideology. Sexual preferences is a continuity, sex is not. I'm happy to that society is accepting or becoming more accepting to trans people it is a good thing. But the trans bigots are happy to destroy decades of progress in women's rights at the altar of their ideology.

Do you not think that allowing a trans person to complete in female sports is not contributing to destroying decades of progress for equal rights in female sports?

At what stage do you say, you know what enough is enough. NO you cannot compete.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
8,833
No I agree Males should not compete with Females/Women. Life's tough but trans people have to accept that as a minor limitation from their condition. Otherwise we should be accepting, but women's rights should not be trampled for a minority and that goes far beyond sport.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,619
Location
Co Durham
Yea, a man. One of the two genders/sexes.

Except that only applies to most male and female babies. Lots of women are born with an x & y chromosome and female genitalia and lots of men are born with two x chromones and a penis.

By your definition the women born with female genitalia and a x&y chromosome should be classed as men and men born with a penis and testicles but with two x chromosomes should be classed as a woman then?
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
Except that only applies to most male and female babies. Lots of women are born with an x & y chromosome and female genitalia and lots of men are born with two x chromones and a penis.

By your definition the women born with female genitalia and a x&y chromosome should be classed as men and men born with a penis and testicles but with two x chromosomes should be classed as a woman then?

Citation needed. The numbers I've read of are tiny.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2004
Posts
8,854
Location
Sunny Torbaydos
I wouldn't say its extremely rare, between 0.5% and 1.7% according to numerous studies, in comparison having red hair is about 2% of the population. The thing is many are oblivious to it and it's only discovered later on in life.
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
1 Aug 2005
Posts
20,001
Location
Flatland
I wouldn't say its extremely rare, between 0.5% and 1.7% according to numerous studies, in comparison having red hair is about 2% of the population. The thing is many are oblivious to it and it's only discovered later on in life.

Really? I'd read it was a lot less than that. I still think that if something is the case 98% of the time, that other 2% can be treated as an anomaly.
 

fez

fez

Caporegime
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
25,023
Location
Tunbridge Wells
Really? I'd read it was a lot less than that. I still think that if something is the case 98% of the time, that other 2% can be treated as an anomaly.

The more obvious question is whether you should punish the other 98% in order to help those 2%. I know that its not that simple but why should the rights of a very very small minority take precedence over the massive majority.

Trans women competing against biological women is just that. You can train all you want as a woman but you simply will not beat a high level trans woman that has transitioned to a woman.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2004
Posts
8,854
Location
Sunny Torbaydos
Really? I'd read it was a lot less than that. I still think that if something is the case 98% of the time, that other 2% can be treated as an anomaly.

In the case of people born male/female with conflicting chromosomes, but appropriate genitalia the numbers of significantly lower. Many of them are oblivious to the condition until they discover they are infertile later on in life.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,304
Except that only applies to most male and female babies. Lots of women are born with an x & y chromosome and female genitalia and lots of men are born with two x chromones and a penis.

By your definition the women born with female genitalia and a x&y chromosome should be classed as men and men born with a penis and testicles but with two x chromosomes should be classed as a woman then?

Which is an extremely rare genetic defect, not the standard. In the natural world you don't see it because they die off.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
You must be new here. Sadly there's a thread like this once per month where it's a-ok to openly hate trans people or just flat out deny they exist.

Ah the 'progressive' fallback of naming an opposition to your beliefs 'hateful' because your beliefs are risible nonsence and cannot be defended on their merits.

We see through this ruse...

Not inherently. I think it's possible to discuss the topic respectfully without intentionally mis-gendering, which is definitely transphobic and something I've seen plenty of.

As has always been pointed out if you lie by, for example, saying that a man is a woman then you have really weakened you ability to defend sex based differentiation and rights.

So no men will remain men and women will remain women regardless of how they identify.

There a reason 'big brother' had Newspeak and wanted to control language to such a high degree. Namely so that people would lack even the very language to object to what was being done to them.

Hubbard is a woman.

Define 'woman'

Pro tip: you are going to fail if you have to use the word woman or similar to describe what a women is (circular definitions dont actually define anything) and if you definition is a 'feeling' what exactly is that feeling and how would one know what it was?

because TRA's consistently fail to provide a coherent definition of what a 'woman is.

When we already have a pretty coherent definition for the word....

I.e adult human female

Adult - a person who is fully grown or developed. Typically(and legally) taken to be around 18 years old.

Human - of or belonging to the genus Homo.

Female - of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

*Please note that a woman who cannot or does not produce large, immobile gametes doesn't stop being a woman any more than a person who loses their legs or is not born with them would cease to be human with humans being a bipedal species.

Does anybody know if she is lifting the same as a woman than when she was a man?

Hubbard was a mediocre male lifter closer to their prime.

They ar now at an age where females would be extremely unlikely to be competitive.

Hence all the TRA's banging on about trans trans women not having an advantage.

Apparently they think that a mediocre man, well past his prime, not 100% being assured of dominating elite women, still in their prime, is evidence that trans women don't have a significant advantage from their biology.
 
Last edited:

SPG

SPG

Soldato
Joined
28 Jul 2010
Posts
10,231
Do you not think that allowing a trans person to complete in female sports is not contributing to destroying decades of progress for equal rights in female sports?

At what stage do you say, you know what enough is enough. NO you cannot compete.

It's very easy.

You are either born with a penis or not. That covers 95% of the population. So for the 5% left that means another small % that want to compete in sport, the answer is pick a different path in life.

It's that simple it really is. All this genetic make-up maybe true, but nothing is more clear than birth sex.

In other words tough luck
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I got called out this week for using the word females interchangeably with the word women. Apparently this was condescending and highlighted my male privelage. In a world with that kind of logic the fight is already lost....

I would also object to someone "using the word females interchangeably with the word women". There's a big difference between 'female people' and 'females'. All female people are female but not all females are people. 'females' also places undue emphasis on their sex. It's fine when you're talking about the mating habits of dogs or somesuch thing. Not so much when you're talking about people in a work context.

A big difference, though, is that I object equally to the use of the word 'male' in the same way. I'd bet that the people who objected at your workplace wouldn't. I'd bet they're the usual fashionably sexist hypocrites. I might be wrong - they might criticise someone who used the word 'males' interchangeably with the word 'men' and say that person was being condescending and highlighting their female privilege. But I doubt it. I doubt it very much.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jan 2004
Posts
10,185
Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2008
Posts
11,484
Location
Lisburn, Northern Ireland
I think you'll find most people don't really care either way, what they do have issue with though is people imposing those beliefs on others, demanding they address them in a specific way. When in reality they are just going to not acknowledge them at all or just completely ignore them.

Yep. I don't care but don't "make me care" what you are. That, I object to.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,619
Location
Co Durham
Citation needed. The numbers I've read of are tiny.

Even if its the 0.02% you claim thats still 1.6 million people. Thats a lot if you get them all together in a room. And by some peoples definitions on here those people who look like men with a penis would be called a woman and those women who have female genitalia and look like women would be called a man.
 
Back
Top Bottom