1. 'Rebekah' is a mentally ill biological male that will never be a woman. And so this comment doesn't get deleted, gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
2. You couldn't handle true statistics about gun violence.
Thoughts and prayers.
Gender incongruence has been moved out of the “Mental and behavioural disorders” chapter and into the new “Conditions related to sexual health” chapter. This reflects current knowledge that trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill-health, and that classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma.
Sounds like they moved it out of the category of mental illness precisely because they are afraid it will stigmatize, since there are no other good reasons given. There's room for sympathy for people suffering mental illness and efforts to keep them from being stigmatized are fair, but it should not be done by patting them on the head and saying "actually, there is nothing wrong with you." Medicine should lead in cases like this, not follow. Not be dragged into conformity by angry social activists. As an actual science practiced by people trained in scientific methods, medicine should be able to stand up to feelings-based groups and "other ways of knowing"-type methodologies. That it has not been able to do so is a sign of how strong the trans activist movement really is, despite posing as a cringing minority that is subject to constant violence from a bigoted society that does not understand them. We do understand them, they are as mentally ill as the person who thinks she is a tablecloth or a hat-rack or Napoleon Bonaparte. There's just more of this kind of ill person, and more power in activism for them, so medicine has to pretend that transgenderism makes sense and is not an illness whereas any other delusion is.
“If by "women are physically inferior and need to be protected" you mean "because women are physically weaker, the only life women are capable of, or should be allowed, is the one that was reality not so long ago, where they weren't allowed to vote, weren't allowed to own property in their own names, have bank accounts, or generally have any legal existence apart from their husbands" then certainly that is false.”
Amazing to me that you extrapolated all those social attitudes from one brief post. A post that mentioned nothing about bank accounts or property ownership.
Your attitude is part of the problem. You’re trying to keep him from expressing his opinion, but it is a valid point. It deserves to be considered on its merits without you setting up a strawman to be knocked down and discarded.
This transgender movement insists there’s no difference at all between men and women, and gender identity is as fluid as we want it to be.
There’s no way to hold that view and still claim that men cannot compete as women. It is either one or the other. We cannot have it both ways. Either we’re going to have to continue to allow men to beat women in open competitions, or we’re going to have to admit to ourselves that men and women are fundamentally different, and women need special protection because they are different.
As other posters have said, the choice is up to women ultimately.
But saying "they are different" in reference to us women presumes that men are the default humans who constitute the norm and ideal standard for the species Homo sapiens, and that women are aberrant oddball humans who deviate from the norm/ideal and fall short of it.
The truth is, men and women - and boys and girls - are physically different to one another in innumerable ways. Neither sex is the norm, and it takes both females and males for our species to exist.
Despite the many physical differences between human females and males, and the very different roles we evolved to play in perpetuating our species, the widely accepted view in the Western world for many years now is that human beings of both sexes are of equal value/worth and dignity, and both groups deserve an equal chance to participate in all aspects of society - including sports - fairly and safely.
Also, the reason that women and girls need special protection is not just because the two sexes are physically different, it's because of how men and boys behave and treat women and girls.
If a minority but still signigicant number of men and boys like the athletes Molly Cameron, Austin Killips, Lia Thomas, Hannah Mouncey, Laurel Hubbard, Veronica Ivy, Chelsea Wolf, CeCe Telfer, Andraya Yearwood, Terry Miller and legions more today did not display attitudes and behaviors that can be described as pushy, entitled, self-centered, arrogant, lordly, aggressive, self-aggrandizing, bullying, covetous, colonizing, cocky, cheating, greedy and misogynistic, then there'd be no reason to have to put protections in place to keep males out of female sports.
Similarly, if a minority but still significnat number of boys and men didn't use their greater physical strength, size and speed to prey on and aggress against and girls and women, there wouldn't be a need to put protective provisions in place to safeguard us against being perved on, grabbed, groped, raped, beaten, sexually harassed, stalked, menaced, threatened, upskirted, flashed at, secretly filmed and so on by men and boys.
This post was edited 15 minutes after it was posted.
We do understand them, they are as mentally ill as the person who thinks she is a tablecloth or a hat-rack or Napoleon Bonaparte. There's just more of this kind of ill person, and more power in activism for them, so medicine has to pretend that transgenderism makes sense and is not an illness whereas any other delusion is.
Who are "we"? And how do you know?
Do you also know that horse dewormer will cure covid, and mRNA vaccines will implant microchips to track your movement?
“If by "women are physically inferior and need to be protected" you mean "because women are physically weaker, the only life women are capable of, or should be allowed, is the one that was reality not so long ago, where they weren't allowed to vote, weren't allowed to own property in their own names, have bank accounts, or generally have any legal existence apart from their husbands" then certainly that is false.”
Amazing to me that you extrapolated all those social attitudes from one brief post. A post that mentioned nothing about bank accounts or property ownership.
Your attitude is part of the problem. You’re trying to keep him from expressing his opinion, but it is a valid point. It deserves to be considered on its merits without you setting up a strawman to be knocked down and discarded.
This transgender movement insists there’s no difference at all between men and women, and gender identity is as fluid as we want it to be.
There’s no way to hold that view and still claim that men cannot compete as women. It is either one or the other. We cannot have it both ways. Either we’re going to have to continue to allow men to beat women in open competitions, or we’re going to have to admit to ourselves that men and women are fundamentally different, and women need special protection because they are different.
As other posters have said, the choice is up to women ultimately.
I didn't try to keep anyone from expressing anything. I've just had enough experience to know that when people start saying "what about those equal rights", what I've said is very often what they mean, if they're actually pushed to give specifics.
"Who cares?" can speak for himself, if he cares to.
As I've said: it's clear to anyone paying attention that, in most physical sports, elite women can't compete with sub-elite high school boys. If, for you, "special protection" extends to addressing that, I'm with you. If it extends to what I wrote in the post you quoted, I'm against you. If it means something else, you can speak for yourself about what that is.
A significant part of the "transgender movement" indeed has incoherent positions. A lot of transgender people rightly resent this -- and I think a lot of the incoherent positions are hyped up and given more prominence than they deserve, not just by a small minority of loudmouth activists, but by loudmouth activists on the other side who seize the opportunity to make their opponents look stupid.
If there were no difference between men and women, transgender men and women wouldn't feel the pain of existing in a body that is fundamentally different from what feels right for them. If gender identity were fluid, there wouldn't be any transgender people -- they'd make themselves cis by changing their gender identity, because dysphoria sucks and transition is hard. A lot of transgender people have certainly tried to do this -- tried harder than most people will ever know, terrified of losing everyone and everything they care about because of who they are and cannot escape being.
People want to win at all costs. All costs. Be it drugs, short cuts, shoes, equipment, manipulation of systems and formats. Look at all the drug busts in running. Mechanical doping in cycling. Really? Mechanical doping? Who thinks this way? Sport has lost it's way.
Frankly I haven't seen many women actually outraged by this or standing up for themselves. It's still mostly dudes on both sides of this conflict. Most women don't seem to care. They don't even get it. If anything this issue really exposes the shortcomings of modern feminism. If women don't care then I don't. If this is actually a women's issue, let more women stand up and do something themselves.
I am a woman and a feminist, and care about this very much. I guess I'd called a TERF if I were brave enough to speak out outside of anonymous message boards. Honestly, I'm afraid my company would fire me if I were to be vocal on this issue.
Molly Cameron has been racing in Oregon for a very long time and she was extremely competitive in the men’s fields while identifying as transgender. It wasn’t until events and organizations started to be inclusive with this topic that Molly started racing in the female categories.
Take what you want from that I guess. Molly was doing it “the right way” for most of your viewpoints for a very long time, and has only recently switched to racing the female category. Perhaps because she feels it’s finally accepted enough to do so. Perhaps for pushing the politics of the topic. Perhaps because it was encouraged by the race organizers. Who knows, but I don’t think taking easy prize money is the motivation in this case.
Either way, it’s not a case of some guy deciding just recently to enter as a girl so that they can see success, like many of you are ranting on about.
A Woman is a person who in historical reference might like to go for a pony ride with a man that has a chubby. If someone who's sitting on your chubby and doesn't have boobs flopping around then probably they are not a woman.
Sounds like some people should get out more often to finger out the difference between a woman and a genetic mistake. If some don't like this reply then heed Archie Bunkers advise, "If you don't like it, lump it, take it down the road and dump it." Easy, Peasy, Pudding and Pie.
Oh, downvoted eh? What about those equal rights women wanted? Where did that equality go when it comes to things that suck, like losing a race? The trans issue is really bringing that hypocrisy to the forefront IMO. Are women a protected class, or equal? What's it gonna be? If women are physically inferior and need to be protected let's be honest about it.
I met a guy at a gravel race this weekend who was quick to talk about this stuff. He said that he fully supports this type of stuff and says it will be good for the sport because women will have to “train harder and catch up”
I’m a woman. I care. I think there should be one category for people with X chromosomes only (female, or whatever you want to call it) and an ‘open’ category for everyone else: male, trans male, trans female, and intersex athletes. If someone does not identify as female but has XX (or XXX) chromosomes and is not taking testosterone, I think they should be eligible for the female category, but no worries if they want to opt out. I want trans and non-binary people to be able to train and compete, but I don’t think they should be in contention for a “Female Overall’ award or prize.
I’m a woman. I care. I think there should be one category for people with X chromosomes only (female, or whatever you want to call it) and an ‘open’ category for everyone else: male, trans male, trans female, and intersex athletes. If someone does not identify as female but has XX (or XXX) chromosomes and is not taking testosterone, I think they should be eligible for the female category, but no worries if they want to opt out. I want trans and non-binary people to be able to train and compete, but I don’t think they should be in contention for a “Female Overall’ award or prize.
Good luck with banning non-binary athletes. They have no unfair advantage in the women’s division.
Frankly I haven't seen many women actually outraged by this or standing up for themselves. It's still mostly dudes on both sides of this conflict. Most women don't seem to care. They don't even get it. If anything this issue really exposes the shortcomings of modern feminism. If women don't care then I don't. If this is actually a women's issue, let more women stand up and do something themselves.
as a woman outraged by this and standing up for it, you're wrong.
“If by "women are physically inferior and need to be protected" you mean "because women are physically weaker, the only life women are capable of, or should be allowed, is the one that was reality not so long ago, where they weren't allowed to vote, weren't allowed to own property in their own names, have bank accounts, or generally have any legal existence apart from their husbands" then certainly that is false.”
Amazing to me that you extrapolated all those social attitudes from one brief post. A post that mentioned nothing about bank accounts or property ownership.
Your attitude is part of the problem. You’re trying to keep him from expressing his opinion, but it is a valid point. It deserves to be considered on its merits without you setting up a strawman to be knocked down and discarded.
This transgender movement insists there’s no difference at all between men and women, and gender identity is as fluid as we want it to be.
There’s no way to hold that view and still claim that men cannot compete as women. It is either one or the other. We cannot have it both ways. Either we’re going to have to continue to allow men to beat women in open competitions, or we’re going to have to admit to ourselves that men and women are fundamentally different, and women need special protection because they are different.
As other posters have said, the choice is up to women ultimately.
But saying "they are different" in reference to us women presumes that men are the default humans who constitute the norm and ideal standard for the species Homo sapiens, and that women are aberrant oddball humans who deviate from the norm/ideal and fall short of it.
The truth is, men and women - and boys and girls - are physically different to one another in innumerable ways. Neither sex is the norm, and it takes both females and males for our species to exist.
Despite the many physical differences between human females and males, and the very different roles we evolved to play in perpetuating our species, the widely accepted view in the Western world for many years now is that human beings of both sexes are of equal value/worth and dignity, and both groups deserve an equal chance to participate in all aspects of society - including sports - fairly and safely.
Also, the reason that women and girls need special protection is not just because the two sexes are physically different, it's because of how men and boys behave and treat women and girls.
If a minority but still signigicant number of men and boys like the athletes Molly Cameron, Austin Killips, Lia Thomas, Hannah Mouncey, Laurel Hubbard, Veronica Ivy, Chelsea Wolf, CeCe Telfer, Andraya Yearwood, Terry Miller and legions more today did not display attitudes and behaviors that can be described as pushy, entitled, self-centered, arrogant, lordly, aggressive, self-aggrandizing, bullying, covetous, colonizing, cocky, cheating, greedy and misogynistic, then there'd be no reason to have to put protections in place to keep males out of female sports.
Similarly, if a minority but still significnat number of boys and men didn't use their greater physical strength, size and speed to prey on and aggress against and girls and women, there wouldn't be a need to put protective provisions in place to safeguard us against being perved on, grabbed, groped, raped, beaten, sexually harassed, stalked, menaced, threatened, upskirted, flashed at, secretly filmed and so on by men and boys.
I don’t understand your post. You seem determined to somehow take my view that men and women are different, and somehow lump it with aggressive sexual behavior toward women. I reject the insinuation, if that is what you meant.
The problem is an ideology that recognizes no differences between men and women, and insists that sex/gender is a social construct that can and should be altered at a whim. So long as that ideology persists, we will continue to see men falsely claiming to be women and unfairly winning athletic contests. It will only get worse.
To fix this, there’s only one solution: recognize that men and women are biologically different, and this is determined at conception and cannot be changed. Adjust the rules accordingly.
And I’ll repeat what I said. Ultimately, only women can make the change. As your post demonstrated, we live in a world of identity politics, and the opinions of a man will never be accepted in this arena, even if they are intended to protect and preserve women’s opportunities.
I agree. I find nothing good to say about the trans-gender movement and its motives, and I have also noted very little opposition from women athletes to this appropriation of supposedly female-only racing outcomes by genetic males. Why do these guys even bother? What possible satisfaction can a genetic male derive from using its* genetic advantages over genetic females to win at sports events? *it = a carefully-chosen gender-neutral pronoun before anyone jumps up and down too much.