Changing Perspectives On Gender.

[Fist and Faith]

Every sphere of human activity is inherently a moral sphere

I'll go along with that.

[Skyweir]

As a transgender woman and I am personally offended by a poster who referred to transgenders as a social contagion.

We are neither a contagion (social or otherwise) nor is transgender contagious.

That’s slur ~ it’s demeaning, stigmatising and dismissive of my reality.

As that comment on page 4 of this thread stands it is offensive and should be deleted, reworded OR evidence provided to back it up.

Also you were factually incorrect in your claim that transgender is a recent trend targeting children in isolation during COVID lockdown:

Transgender people (including non-binary and third gender people) have existed in cultures worldwide since ancient times.

The modern terms and meanings of "transgender", "gender", "gender identity", and "gender role" only emerged in the 1950s and 1960s.

As a result, opinions vary on how to categorize historical accounts of gender-variant people and identities.

Sumerian and Akkadian texts from 4,500 years ago document priests known as gala who may have been transgender.

In Ancient Greece, Phrygia, and Rome, there were Galli priests that some scholars believe to have been trans women. Roman emperor Elagabalus (d. 222 AD) preferred to be called a lady (rather than a lord) and sought sex reassignment surgery, and in the modern day has been seen as a trans [iconic] figure.

Should you wish to enlighten yourself you can educate yourself about trans history from ancient times to the current day.

https://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/o ... _lives.pdf

https://transguys.com/features/ftm-trans-history

Clearly the rules in the Current Affairs thread | the test case for a future Tank ~ do not preclude being offensive (despite their claims) … as offensive commentary clearly identified and explained as offensive is seemingly A-OK with the moderator.

A thing that doesn’t bode well for a Tank equivalent forum going forward but it is what it is.

[Skyweir]

I feel it appropriate to point out a FACT.

"Women" is not a protected class. Saying it is is not only wrong but perpetuates an incorrect narrative of what "protected class" means.

https://www.eeoc.gov/discrimination-type

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ ... x_dis.html

I feel it even more appropriate to quote the law. Now if you want to argue that Title IV had nothing to do with protecting women, then by all means, go ahead.

I feel it appropriate to point out a FACT.

"Women" is not a protected class. Saying it is is not only wrong but perpetuates an incorrect narrative of what "protected class" means.

Edit to add: I find the notion that all, or most, transgenders are guys seeking to dominate a women's sports team (and who find gender reassignment a small cost to pay!).

Also: if you are a women, then the law should treat you as one, no matter how you "got there". (If I become handicapped, am I not handicapped in the eyes of the law? If I become Christian, am I not Christian in the eyes of the law? If I get old, am I not elderly in the eyes of the law?)

So the [erroneous] argument about protected classes only makes sense when you refuse to consider a transgender woman as a woman.

This is important because it shows that this line of reasoning doesn't say anything about transgender women. It is predicated on refusing to acknowledge them, rather than explaining why we should not acknowledge them. And so, it only says something about those who refuse to accept them.

Wayfriend is correct ~ the protections outlined apply to sex , not women.

Though Nihilo is correct seeking greater legal protections for women was one of the drivers.

That’s a salient distinction … and more relevantly understood with legal nuance than loose interpretation.

[Skyweir]

I agree with that. Thing is though, we are not required to.

--A

You are right that people do what they want. That’s why there are equality laws that address those who don’t.

The thing is egalitarianism is an ideal only and as societies we codify rules to regulate behaviour/actions.

So vicariously through the social compact and the system that supports it ~ we are required ~ morally/ethically and to circumnavigate potential legal repercussions so to speak.

[Avatar]

I don't necessarily disagree with most of that. The thing we also have to keep in mind though is that this is very early days. I mean, you must remember how long the fight for equal rights for different races, or for homosexuality, took, and how difficult that was to even get started, let alone achieve. (And not even talking about people's prejudices / acceptance of it.)

And hell, the fight for just plain binary gender equality is still ongoing even though it theoretically (and legally) is fully extant.

Really, the rate of progress on "alternative" gender issues is nothing short of astounding in comparison, even though we have a way to go still.

Those earlier successes have paved the way for it, but I think that for many people, forgetting what a struggle it was, (or being too young to have see it) and seeing only the eventual outcome, has created an unrealistic expectation of how quickly these things happen.

In the words of Robert Jordan, when you throw over the rudder on something as big as the world, it takes time for the bow to start coming round. In some places / times / societies / whatever, it will literally take everybody to whom it is alien dying before it starts being seen as something unremarkable. (And there will still be the pockets where people were raised to see it as wrong that will take even longer to come round. And some that never will.)

This is how meaningful social change happens. You can't just push a button and make everybody fall into line, and that (on its own) is not a bad thing necessarily. (Can help guard against negative changes.)

As for earlier posts, the real contagion (and I agree it's an offensive way of putting it at best) is the continuing proliferation of intolerance and "othering" or "demonising" anything or anyone different. So many of these arguments are just variations on the same things that were said about "normalising" homosexuality or racial equality, and the spirit of them is pretty much the same too. "Think of the children!!"

We're not going to change anybodies mind. The present is a state of constant conflict between the past and the future, and that kind of thinking is a relic of the past's attempt to maintain its hold. ::shrug::

One day, like in the Culture books, we'll change gender at will and non-surgically. Some people will switch back and forth several times in one lifetime, and nobody will think twice about it. These are just the first, painful, stumbling steps on the path as people realise that other options may be possible.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Also you were factually incorrect in your claim that transgender is a recent trend targeting children in isolation during COVID lockdown:

This is how to combat misinformation, disinformation, and any other kind of inaccurate information. Not by not allowing it to be spoken, but by giving facts that prove it wrong, so anyone reading will see which view is correct. Not allowing such things to be said openly, so they can be countered openly, means they will only be said behind closed doors. When said behind closed doors, there is no one to counter them, and The Listener only gets that one view.

If Nihilo meant it the way you are taking it, and yours seems a reasonable interpretation to me, it cannot be correct. There have been transgender people around long before social media and the pandemic. Therefore, there's no reason to think that even those cases that occurred after social media and the pandemic came about in the way he suggests.

[Skyweir]

Then why are you perpetually deleting posts?

[Fist and Faith]

Things directed at a particular Watcher are not allowed. Those things get deleted. This is not one of those cases.

[wayfriend]

I'm stating exactly what my last link stated. That Title IX (got it right this time!) applies to both sexes, but was crafted to deal with women's issues.

These words are fine. But words to the effect that it elevates women more than is needed for equality I will always disagree with, and that's why I disagreed with you earlier.

allowing men to compete in women's sports ...

Again, you are making a very circular argument, namely that because transgender women are really men, this proves that transgender women should be men. You would have an actual argument if you presupposed the opposite, and then showed us where it led to.

But I refuse to be red herringed by this argument. "Sports" is not a good reason to deny transgender people equal rights. It never has been. It never will be.

[Skyweir]

Things directed at a particular Watcher are not allowed. Those things get deleted. This is not one of those cases.

With respect, that’s a problem for a new Tank if there is one.

Cuz you are summarily deleting posts cuz they merely cite another poster’s name (which is often necessary) ~ and why? Cuz it could inexplicably offend/insult that other poster?

But a post which IS objectively offensive is ok.

That seems to me, the epitome of a logical fallacy.

If we are genuinely going to convince Jay/the Watch that we as a community can establish a civil political discussion forum ~ a thing that was previously an abject failure ~ we might need to do better.

[Fist and Faith]

Things directed at a particular Watcher are not allowed. Those things get deleted. This is not one of those cases.

With respect, that’s a problem for a new Tank if there is one.

Cuz you are summarily deleting posts cuz they merely cite another poster’s name (which is often necessary) ~ and why? Cuz it could inexplicably offend/insult that other poster?

For at least the third time, that rule no longer exists, and I do not delete posts for that reason.

Here is the most recent time I said that rule no longer exists, and it quotes the first time.
viewtopic.php?p=1156250#p1156250

Perhaps you remember the first time, when we also spoke about the fact that the edited first post of Current Events, which contains the rules, did not have the correct date in the Last Edited By information.

In short:
There is no rule against directing things at a particular Watcher.

[Skyweir]

Things directed at a particular Watcher are not allowed. Those things get deleted. This is not one of those cases.

Indeed but you deleted my post citing that reason and the rules I see on page 1 of the CA thread still reads as I quoted previously and the link you’ve provided is to the previous page

With respect, that’s a problem for a new Tank if there is one.

Cuz you are summarily deleting posts cuz they merely cite another poster’s name (which is often necessary) ~ and why? Cuz it could inexplicably offend/insult that other poster?

For at least the third time, that rule no longer exists, and I do not delete posts for that reason.

Here is the most recent time I said that rule no longer exists, and it quotes the first time.
viewtopic.php?p=1156250#p1156250

Perhaps you remember the first time, when we also spoke about the fact that the edited first post of Current Events, which contains the rules, did not have the correct date in the Last Edited By information.

In short:
There is no rule against directing things at a particular Watcher.

The link you’ve provided is to the previous page of this thread which does not show that the rules have been amended. You have literally deleted my posts and cited the reason being that I referenced a poster by name.

I know we discussed that oft times it is absolutely necessary to do that ~ and you said you were going to amend that rule but I have not seen it.

RULES

1) NO PERSONAL INSULTS OF ANY KIND.
No name-calling. No telling someone what their shortcomings are. Etc., etc.

2) ADDRESS THE INFORMATION IN A POST, NOT THE POSTER.
IOW, don't say, "You're wrong about X." Say, "X is wrong. Here's why..."

3) DON'T ASSUME YOU KNOW SOMEONE'S MOTIVATIONS, INTENTIONS, WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN, OR AGENDA.
If you think someone is hinting at a something, ask them to clarify. If they do, you can address it. If they don't, you can still address what they actually said.

4) DON'T MAKE GENERALIZATIONS.
We all know generalizations are crap. The only thing all Democrats have in common is that they voted for the Democrat, and the only thing all Republicans have in common is that they voted for the Republican.

This is what I see on page one of the CA thread ~ are there updated rules elsewhere?

I’m not trying to upset your apple cart ~ but get a clear appreciation of what you are doing and why.

I understand that it may seem like personal criticism but that’s not where I’m coming from in making these points.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I'm stating exactly what my last link stated. That Title IX (got it right this time!) applies to both sexes, but was crafted to deal with women's issues.

These words are fine. But words to the effect that it elevates women more than is needed for equality I will always disagree with, and that's why I disagreed with you earlier.

I have not made the argument that women are elevated more than is needed for equality. Carve-outs for women (and blacks) do however exist both in the law and in out societal norms. Women (and blacks) have historically faced discrimination based on immutable characteristics of theirs, and the law (and society) has taken steps to correct and make up for said discrimination.

allowing men to compete in women's sports ...

Again, you are making a very circular argument, namely that because transgender women are really men, this proves that transgender women should be men. You would have an actual argument if you presupposed the opposite, and then showed us where it led to.

Transgender women are biologically men. This is fact. Surgery, hormone treatments, and self-identification cannot change that. There's nothing at all circular about that. What I've said repeatedly is that these people deserve equal protection under the law, as does everyone else. They do not deserve anything at the cost of others, and there are massive costs to women if they're expected to compete with biological men.

But I refuse to be red herringed by this argument. "Sports" is not a good reason to deny transgender people equal rights. It never has been. It never will be.

"Sports" is simply one facet of the discussion, and the one that seems to keep coming up. I've mentioned others.

Regarding my, "social contagion" statement. Yes, there have been both men and women throughout history who identified as the opposite sex. That is neither here nor there. In the Reddit link I posted, several detransitioners have used that description, or, "trans cult" to describe their experiences, which is why I posted it, and why I suggested that everyone spend some time reading through those people's stories.

[SoulBiter]

Sports is an area that (in my opinion) someone who is biologically male, should not compete against females. It gives them an unfair advantage in competitions. I get that we want people to be treated equally and I agree. But until they can figure out how to balance that unfair advantage out, then its unfair to have biological women competing against biological men in women's sports.

[Fist and Faith]

My apologies, Sky. There is a misunderstanding. There was originally another rule, saying we literally could not refer to another poster. Not when speaking to a third party, "F&F said..." Not even when speaking to the person. "You said..."

The reason for it was good. But it was way too awkward, and I removed it. We had a handful of posts discussing where it was, because the Last Edited By was glitched, and you wanted to be sure you were looking at the right thing

[And you said I could delete those posts, since making sure you were looking at the right thing was all they were about.]

I have added a little information to the rule I presume you are talking about, hopefully clarifying:

3) ADDRESS THE INFORMATION IN A POST, NOT THE POSTER.
IOW, don't say, "You're wrong about X." Say, "X is wrong. Here's why..." Yes, you can call the poster by name, and quote their post. But if you have a problem with a point they made, discuss what is wrong with their point, not what is wrong with their thinking.

I also realize I forgot a rule, so I added it:

2) NO TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER POSTER IN THE THIRD PERSON.
Two or more posters may not talk about a third poster as though the third is not right there in the room.

[wayfriend]

Sports is an area that (in my opinion) someone who is biologically male, should not compete against females. It gives them an unfair advantage in competitions.

I wonder why no one hears how horrible that sounds when they say it?

People are different. Some of them are genetically predisposed to be stronger, some of them are genetically predisposed to be weaker.
No one has ever, ever, ever denied someone their BASIC IDENTITY because of a genetic predisposition that affects sports.

It's unfair? UNTIL AND UNLESS someone explains WHY IT'S DIFFERENT than any other advantageous genetic predisposition, then it isn't a reason, it's an excuse.

In other words, can you assure me that if a woman is born who is stronger than other woman, she would not be allowed to compete in sports involving strength?

AFAICT, no one has offered such an explanation.

And I have mentioned before the PREPOSTEROUSNESS of someone changing their gender for the sole reason to compete in sports. No one has offered any basis for such a claim either.

[wayfriend]

Not the point.

Please don't tell me what my point is.
I assure you, this IS my point.

If you (general) pick and choose which genetic variations to exclude and which to not, then you are being arbitrary.
And if your being arbitrary, then it is about opression.

as massive as the difference in bone and muscular density that men enjoy over women

Rather than ignore this question, tell me again : would you exclude a woman who had such a "massive difference" for some reason, but was not transgender?

Hint: if you say 'yes', then you are promoting oppression based on genetics, if you say 'no' then you are being anti-transgender for no plausible reason, and if you don't respond (again) then we will know that this line of reasoning cannot be defended.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I was informed that this post didn't conform to the spirit or the word of the rules, so I've modified it.

Sports is an area that (in my opinion) someone who is biologically male, should not compete against females. It gives them an unfair advantage in competitions.

I wonder why no one hears how horrible that sounds when they say it?

Doesn't sound horrible to me. We've had segregated sports for decades precisely because men and women don't (can't) compete at the same level. Remember when a 3rd rate male tennis player beat both Serena and Venus Williams?

https://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POS ... -Back.aspx

People are different. Some of them are genetically predisposed to be stronger, some of them are genetically predisposed to be weaker.

Though this may be your point, it's not my point. Those things are true, but when you have a foundational advantage that's as massive as the difference in bone and muscular density that men enjoy over women, that's a different story.

No one has ever, ever, ever denied someone their BASIC IDENTITY because of a genetic predisposition that affects sports.

This is where the problem exists. I can claim that my basic identity is that I'm the greatest tennis player to ever play the game. Serena Williams would wipe the floor with me. Someone can identify as the opposite sex, and I'll respect their identity (and I think everyone should). But when that identity clashes with basic biological facts, then there's a break. As I said upthread, I don't know how to reconcile that, short of a third league for people who have transitioned.

]It's unfair? UNTIL AND UNLESS someone explains WHY IT'S DIFFERENT than any other advantageous genetic predisposition, then it isn't a reason, it's an excuse.

See above. Unless we advocate for an elimination of women's sports, which would indicate that there's no difference between the basic differences between men and women, and the vagaries of genetic fitness levels between same-sex competitors. I think that's also a possible solution, though it would require scrapping Title IX, and it would (to my mind) be the death knell for women's participation in sports.

In other words, can you assure me that if a woman is born who is stronger than other woman, she would not be allowed to compete in sports involving strength?

Of course not, as that's what separates world-class athletes from the rest of us. I reject the false choice given. I could no more be a professional football player than I could fly. That's not anything other than the way I'm built, and the fact that I didn't spend my childhood training for it. BTW, this wasn't ignored, it was mistakenly deleted as I was putting my original post together.

And I have mentioned before the PREPOSTEROUSNESS of someone changing their gender for the sole reason to compete in sports. No one has offered any basis for such a claim either.

Nothing preposterous about it. I'm not suggesting any particular athlete has done so, but it's certainly within the cynical realm of possibility, especially when life-changing amounts of scholarship money are at stake.

I've addressed every one of your points without using any hyperbole or trying to frame your argument for you. What's your solution? How is it different for males who identify as female competing against females who identify as female compared with males who identify as male competing against females who identify as female? Because I can't see any way to keep women's sports intact through either allowing biological males to compete in women's leagues, or simply eliminating any sex distinction in sports.

[SoulBiter]

I don't see this as an "in for a penny, in for a pound" situation. We can affirm that someone can be born with Gender Dysphoria (gender mentally not lining up with gender physically), while also realizing that when someone changes attributes of their gender to be "female or male", that they are still biologically still the sex they were born as. As such I would never put a trans-woman in the boxing ring with someone that is biologically a female. The biological female is not just going to lose, they are liable to be in the hospital. On the other side I would never put a trans-male in the boxing ring with someone biologically male. In that instance the trans-male is going to lose horribly and likely to be in the hospital after.

Now that is one of the more extreme sports but it represents a possibility if we ignore someone's biology and instead focus on how they identify. It will be even harder to deal with if someone considers themselves "gender fluid" and they go back and forth or perhaps not identify totally with either.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I don't see this as an "in for a penny, in for a pound" situation. We can affirm that someone can be born with Gender Dysphoria (gender mentally not lining up with gender physically), while also realizing that when someone changes attributes of their gender to be "female or male", that they are still biologically still the sex they were born as. As such I would never put a trans-woman in the boxing ring with someone that is biologically a female. The biological female is not just going to lose, they are liable to be in the hospital. On the other side I would never put a trans-male in the boxing ring with someone biologically male. In that instance the trans-male is going to lose horribly and likely to be in the hospital after.

Now that is one of the more extreme sports but it represents a possibility if we ignore someone's biology and instead focus on how they identify. It will be even harder to deal with if someone considers themselves "gender fluid" and they go back and forth or perhaps not identify totally with either.

Excellent points all, especially your last one.

Which prompts the question, if one can self-identify back and forth, can that person compete in either arena based on how they identify on that day?