The Trans Women Athlete Dispute

[KimGordon67]

Barren: (of a woman or female animal) having low or zero fecundity; unable to bear children or young.


Infecund: (of a woman or female animal) having low or zero fecundity; unable to bear children or young.

Well, this is a problem, because apparently we've just established that the definition of 'female' hinges on the ability to bear children.

 

[KimGordon67]

And, if Gender isn't Sex, then why should a Transgender Woman be allowed to enter the sports of the Female Sex? (The answer to that is: Gender & Sex are only different when it suits the argument.)

Aren't the sporting categories 'men's' and 'women's'?
(But really, the answer is that the use of sex vs gender in everyday context is notoriously imprecise - the above argument demonstrates that. And the nature of both the concepts are, at their edges, a bit slippery ... Butler, for example, would argue that sex always already is gender, and to some extent I'm kind of agreeing with her - I think the term 'sex' defines a different set of 'things' (for want of a better word - it's late) than 'gender' does, but the definitions are still those we've agree on socially - they didn't fall out of the sky fully formed.)

 

[KimGordon67]

How do you "do" the female gender?

Are persons of the female sex actually of the male gender because they are:
soldiers
athletes
career driven
educated
(These are fields and purview dominated by men.)

Try reading a book or two. My patience with outlining this stuff has worn a bit thin. Judith Butler's Gender Trouble would do the trick - it's a fairly slim volume. Or West & Zimmerman's article 'Doing gender', which I'm helpfully linking here, with literally zero expectation that either of you will read it.

 

[KimGordon67]

Men's and Women's as, under the terms commonly agreed upon the world over as Male/Female sex for the longest time until the craziness of the Gender age and the modern Woke-force..

LMAO - sure, if you say so. Identities that exist outside the binary conceptualisation of sex/gender have only existed since the 'gender age' (whatever TF that is). How irritating for everyone.

 

[KimGordon67]

So, once again, you offer no definitive answer. This has not been fun, and I'm ready to wash my hands of you. You have provided nothing in the defense of your stance.

*Sigh.*

Actually, I provided two extremely well read and influential pieces of literature that have contributed significantly to shaping the field ... but, y'know, just ignore them. I pretty much expected that.

As Bramble much more succinctly pointed out some posts back, there is no definitive answer.

 

[TastySuckToy]

No, you're arguing for 'belief'. I'm arguing for the fact that I am a woman. This is, in part, why Judith Butler refers to gender as performative - it is created through the doing of it.

I have no doubts you sincerely believe you are a woman. The difference is I don't accept belief as valid evidence for a claim, and I've shown one of several ways to determine scientifically if someone is female.

 

[stickygirl]

Oh, it's easily definable. I'm just not going to waste time explaining something my three year old niece has already figured out. Her brain is sophisticated enough that despite just beginning to talk, she can identify male and female very easily. Including animated, fictional and non human characters.

Kids are awesome huh? Funnily enough, that's about the age I started insisting I wasn't a boy.

I have no doubts you sincerely believe you are a woman. The difference is I don't accept belief as valid evidence for a claim, and I've shown one of several ways to determine scientifically if someone is female.

What, with a dictionary definition? Not sure that’s going to fly. To save you the trouble of Googling genetic definitions, they’re not reliable either, but you may have to read more than the headline to get a handle on it.

Well, you and KK have been obsessing over dictionary definitions and ignoring the individual: the person who suffers debilitating depression, has frequent suicidal thoughts, is shunned by a society hell bent on out-dated and inaccurate definitions of ‘words’… not people… not dead teenagers.

I don’t give a toss for uncited definitions or claims of society having to bend backward to accommodate people who just want to be accepted for who they are. Why does gender matter to you so much?

Lets look at the stats: how many people identify as trans in the USA = 0.6%. Hardly a takeover that has society on its knees.

Do you have any idea how many trans kids attempt suicide? More than 50% If that doesn’t shock you nothing will. More trans kids take their own lives than High School kids get shot on campus ( I guessed that ... does it sound right to you? ). Maybe transgender kids don't really count though - you know, because dictionary definitions and they're weird too, right?

Helping people and kids in particular, to transition, saves lives. This is a fact. Being obsessed with 19th-century definitions you pulled from Wiki is not helping - you become part of the problem for a tiny percentage of the population who are just trying to live their life as they see best. They don’t cause trouble, they don’t want to cause anyone harm, and moreover, instead of being a burden to society through poor mental health, they can lead normal productive lives ... and pay taxes.

You guys are tilting at windmills with imaginary horrors and not one valid citation between you. I get it - you hate trans people. No amount of medical fact or evidence will change your mind, so quit whingeing on with your opinions. Go outside and do something good for someone else for a change.

 

[coati]

I have no doubts you sincerely believe you are a woman. The difference is I don't accept belief as valid evidence for a claim, and I've shown one of several ways to determine scientifically if someone is female.

If you go back and read the opening post, you will see that Stickygirl simply informed this forum about a program in which publicly identified people were making statements about trans women athletes.

As an anonymous poster, your views and beliefs hold zero scientific credibility, compared to those who are staking their professional integrity in the world of scientific discourse. Peer reviewed science does not accept articles or studies from anonymous authors. Posting your personal beliefs as TastySuckToy on Lit does not qualify as submitting science.

So, I agree with Sticky. Turn off your troll device and go outside. Breathe deeply. And then decide if you want to publish and/or cite peer reviewed science on this topic to the extent that your statements get covered in the sort of program Sticky referenced in the opening post, or quit spouting off hurtful prejudices in a cowardly and anonymous manner.

Don't make life more difficult for some of the most oppressed people in our society.

 

[Bramblethorn]

My point can only be made by reversing the question - what scientific methodology would you use to test my claim that I'm a woman? I'm going to answer that, because I know you won't - none, because there is no such methodology.

Does that mean I'm not a woman?

We can narrow it down, though!

From what you quoted, TST has told us that his three-year-old niece can identify gender at a glance, IRL and in cartoons.

Unless TST's niece lives in a nudist colony where small children are allowed to watch explicit hentai, we can conclude that her definition of "gender" doesn't hinge on people's genitals. We can probably also rule out DNA-based definitions and anything involving internal anatomy.

Meanwhile, from other stuff you quoted, I see KK has figured out that I'm female. I'm pretty sure that KK has never looked down my pants or given me a medical exam, let alone tested my ability to bear children - that seems like the sort of thing I'd remember - and I've never posted here about stuff like dysmenorrhea Pap tests. So presumably KK has deduced my gender from some kind of social/behavioural cues.

Which means... neither of these folk are actually working from a strict DNA/internal-organs definition of "gender". That might be their debating position but clearly it's not what they actually believe, or live by.

 

[Bramblethorn]

As an anonymous poster, your views and beliefs hold zero scientific credibility, compared to those who are staking their professional integrity in the world of scientific discourse. Peer reviewed science does not accept articles or studies from anonymous authors. Posting your personal beliefs as TastySuckToy on Lit does not qualify as submitting science.

On that note, here's an editorial from the most prestigious journal in bio/medical research, opposing the idea that gender can or should be classified on the basis of anatomy or genetics: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

And here's a letter signed by 2617 scientists, including nine Nobel Laureates from various fields, backing the same position: https://not-binary.org/statement/

I mean, obviously this isn't as strong as the word of some anonymous poster's three-year-old niece or Ben "sell your houses to Aquaman" Shapiro, but it's not nothing.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Still waiting for any effort to demonstrate how to determine someone is trans, when it has been acknowledged belief is not valid evidence for a claim.

As I asked before, if I claim to be trans (or even not trans), how would someone go about proving or disproving the assertion?

No one yet has presented any kind of sound methodology for making the determination. So far, it seems anyone claiming to be trans has as much credibility as claiming to be an airplane or unicorn.

We do have methodologies for determining male and female, based upon physical biology, primary and secondary sexual characteristics, chromosomes, etc. Never mind the average person having no problem determining the sex/gender of other people by even superficial observation in the overwhelming vast majority of cases. It's certainly not perfect (no system is), but at least the methodology exists.

But so far, zero methodology submitted for determing the state of trans identity. Which makes sense if one concludes trans is merely a mental problem.

 

[coati]

Bramble and Kim,

Does it help anything to "debate" trolls? Or does it give them a sense of unearned legitimacy?

Sticky simply provided a public service by informing us of the BBC program. The trolls took it as an opportunity to promote their prejudices.

Cordially and respectfully,
Coati

 

[KimGordon67]

Bramble and Kim,

Does it help anything to "debate" trolls? Or does it give them a sense of unearned legitimacy?

Sticky simply provided a public service by informing us of the BBC program. The trolls took it as an opportunity to promote their prejudices.

Cordially and respectfully,
Coati

I did write a note to self this morning about not engaging after wine.

 

[KimGordon67]

We can narrow it down, though!

From what you quoted, TST has told us that his three-year-old niece can identify gender at a glance, IRL and in cartoons.

Unless TST's niece lives in a nudist colony where small children are allowed to watch explicit hentai, we can conclude that her definition of "gender" doesn't hinge on people's genitals. We can probably also rule out DNA-based definitions and anything involving internal anatomy.

Meanwhile, from other stuff you quoted, I see KK has figured out that I'm female. I'm pretty sure that KK has never looked down my pants or given me a medical exam, let alone tested my ability to bear children - that seems like the sort of thing I'd remember - and I've never posted here about stuff like dysmenorrhea Pap tests. So presumably KK has deduced my gender from some kind of social/behavioural cues.

Which means... neither of these folk are actually working from a strict DNA/internal-organs definition of "gender". That might be their debating position but clearly it's not what they actually believe, or live by.

Perhaps KK asked TST's niece?

 

[coati]

She wants to argue but not face to face. She's a weak woman...
Let's do a shorthand version of what could be an interesting paper to write.

So go ahead and write that paper under your real name, try to get it published, defend it face to face in public forums, and then maybe it can be referenced in a media program such as the one introduced in the opening post of this thread.

"Debating" on an anonymous on-line forum with a puffed-up chest while defending another cruel and anonymous attack-poster is the lowest and most cowardly form of mental masturbation. In real debating, you stake your real name and your reputation to your statements.

Sticky did not come to any conclusion in her opening post about an open debate among publicly-identified speakers, but the anonymous on-line attack-posters spout off all their fucking conclusions with no regard for the degree of cruelty they inflict on real people.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Pathetic.

But not surprising, let's be honest. Great write up you did, but I think we both know the usual flow of insults and appeals to motivation was going to be the fall back position for them.

Also worthy of note is how they stress knowing your real identity is somehow 'important'. When it comes to a discussion/argument, the identity of a person is irrelevant. Arguments stand or fall based upon their own merits, not the person making them.

The concern about your identity isn't because they're interested in discussion, your identity isn't needed for that.

 

[coati]

Also worthy of note is how they stress knowing your real identity is somehow 'important'. When it comes to a discussion/argument, the identity of a person is irrelevant. Arguments stand or fall based upon their own merits, not the person making them.

The concern about your identity isn't because they're interested in discussion, your identity isn't needed for that.

When I was young, the KKK also hid their identities when they, like you, called a category of people mentally defective. Anonymous on-line forums simply eliminate the cloth form of white hoods from cruel attacks.

In your pack mentality, your partner (KK) called another poster "cunt: and "weak woman" as he fantasized about his debating prowess using his imaginary paper that he has thus far not had the guts to publish in an actual public forum where he stakes his real name and reputation to his statements.

Cruel cowards spouting off under virtual white hoods, with no regard for consequences of the hate they promote.

 

[Thebutterscene]

When I was young, the KKK also hid their identities when they, like you, called a category of people mentally defective. Anonymous on-line forums simply eliminate the cloth form of white hoods from cruel attacks.

In your pack mentality, your partner (KK) called another poster "cunt: and "weak woman" as he fantasized about his debating prowess using his imaginary paper that he has thus far not had the guts to publish in an actual public forum where he stakes his real name and reputation to his statements.

Cruel cowards spouting off under virtual white hoods, with no regard for consequences of the hate they promote.

I get the feeling that anyone that doesn't play along and fully recognize and accept Transgender/LGBT/gender fluidity, however polite and respectful they are, will be branded as KKK by you.

 

[TastySuckToy]

When I was young, the KKK also hid their identities when they, like you, called a category of people mentally defective. Anonymous on-line forums simply eliminate the cloth form of white hoods from cruel attacks.

I've never called anyone here mentally defective. I have said I consider trans a mental disorder/illness.

How that translates to 'cruel attack' is beyond me. If anything, that demonstrates what you think of people who suffer mental illness. I consider mental illness something to be tackled in a humane and caring way, the sufferers of it being victims.

But you think even the label is part of a cruel attack. I don't think I'd trust you around people who are victims, since your mentality is to automatically demonize just identifying them as such. God knows how far you'd go if such people were left under your influence.,

In your pack mentality, your partner (KK) called another poster "cunt: and "weak woman" as he fantasized about his debating prowess using his imaginary paper that he has thus far not had the guts to publish in an actual public forum where he stakes his real name and reputation to his statements.

Cruel cowards spouting off under virtual white hoods, with no regard for consequences of the hate they promote.

Only person I see promoting any kind of hate here is you.

Personally, I subscribe to a transhumanism viewpoint (via technological progress) whereas I see a future where people can literally be anything they choose to be. Though we're not there yet.

But sure, go ahead and continue to name call others, while sadly and ironically claiming they are the attackers here.

 

[coati]

I get the feeling that anyone that doesn't play along and fully recognize and accept Transgender/LGBT/gender fluidity, however polite and respectful they are, will be branded as KKK by you.

Many in the KKK also regarded themselves as "polite and respectful" (pillars of their community), but they had to hide their identities when they promoted the notion that a class of people was mentally defective.

Take note that this is not the General Board, so it has different rules. Calling trans merely a mental problem, calling another poster a cunt and weak woman, acting like a pack of attack dogs, and complaining that you are somehow being forced to "play along and fully recognize and accept Transgender/LGBT/gender fluidity" is something you can do with other cowards on the General Board.

As Sticky said in her second post on this thread, this thread is not for you.

This board requires actual respect, and is not fair game for overt or veiled cruelty and pack behavior.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Accusing others of being like the KKK, accusing them of cruelty (by daring to have different opinions), calling them cowards and trying to bully them into leaving a discussion.

I agree, coati, there is definitely a lack of respect here. Just not from the direction you think.

 

[Thebutterscene]

Many in the KKK also regarded themselves as "polite and respectful" (pillars of their community), but they had to hide their identities when they promoted the notion that a class of people was mentally defective.

Take note that this is not the General Board, so it has different rules. Calling trans merely a mental problem, calling another poster a cunt and weak woman, acting like a pack of attack dogs, and complaining that you are somehow being forced to "play along and fully recognize and accept Transgender/LGBT/gender fluidity" is something you can do with other cowards on the General Board.

As Sticky said in her second post on this thread, this thread is not for you.

This board requires actual respect, and is not fair game for overt or veiled cruelty and pack behavior.

Oh, its a "safe space" is it?? ok.

 

[coati]

Oh, its a "safe space" is it?? ok.

Read the GLBT Chatter guidelines, and then take your sarcasm and faux victimization to the General Board.

 

[Thebutterscene]

Read the GLBT Chatter guidelines, and then take your sarcasm and faux victimization to the General Board.

The thing is, you lot can and do take your "issue" into mainstream society, insisting that LGBT is taught in schools and that transwomen should compete as women in sports and so on, (which is what this thread is actually about after all) and so you must expect some push back from it...or do you think people should just put up and shut up?

 

[TastySuckToy]

The thing is, you lot can and do take your "issue" into mainstream society, insisting that LGBT is taught in schools and that transwomen should compete as women in sports and so on, (which is what this thread is actually about after all) and so you must expect some push back from it...or do you think people should just put up and shut up?

Apparently a group of people consisting of tiny fractions of a percent of the population has the right to tell everyone else how to think and attack others if they don't fall in line.