landsurfer wrote: Why are Women not standing up to this !!!!
Where is #MeToo .... on this Issue ....
Maybe because we have more in common with women who used be men than men who are entrenched in their ways.
Your view not mine. Speaking to two daughters, a wife and many close female friends who all feel that they are being forced to accept manwomen using there loos. They are afraid to say anything in case they get labelled as being prejudiced. From an observational view I've yet to see a transgender person look remotely like a female. Not wishing to upset anyone on here but I'm still allowed to express a view, at least at the moment!
landsurfer wrote: Why are Women not standing up to this !!!!
Where is #MeToo .... on this Issue ....
Maybe because we have more in common with women who used be men than men who are entrenched in their ways.
I pay a lot less attention to this than perhaps I should but I thought there were some prominent feminists who were "standing up to this" and getting some flak for doing so. Or perhaps this is more nuanced than I appreciate.
there are lots of women who are speaking up. Martina Navrátilová, Sharron Davies, and others. They got abused and told they were terrible people and tat all their considerable achievements were rendered worthless by their horrific bigotry.
I agree with vorpal btw, that there does seem to be a strong sense of women sticking up for an oppressed group in defending this.
I think this is a difficult situation in that there is no desire to be open about what is going on.
For example, we have never been told fully about Caster Semenya's biology, because it is deemed private, yet what we do know is that Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes and testes, and may have a condition (5ARD), whereby most children, even if raised as girls, will identify as male after puberty (besides of course having functioning ejaculatory ducts, testes, etc.)
So on the one hand there is lots of 'let's be nice' and say 'X is a woman' (as in this case), but no desire to say that the biological reality is you can't reverse the clock on growing up, and convert a male into a female, any more than you can covert a greyhound into a chihuahua.
People born with Y chromosomes will grow up stronger, taller, with stronger bones, more lung capacity, than those without them. If they want to 'live as a woman' or whatever so be it, but your rights should end where my rights begin - Weatherly says that after winning (?) at a previous event in March, the prize money was enough to compete and train for this. Which is nice, but what about the woman behind in March, who didn't get any, or less, prize money, the woman in fourth place in the race, the woman in 16th place in the qualifying because of Weatherly, and so on. These women have the right to compete without people who have biological advantages fundamental to being male.
Some foolish people say 'but what about tall women'. Tall women are irrelevant - if you only have two categories, male and female, then they should be based on underlying biology, not 'I've taken some hormones for a few months, that makes me a woman, honest guv'.
If on the one hand you have lots of touchy-feely groups talking about civil rights, oppression, and such like, then it's pushing against an open door in terms of advancing the agenda. In the 70s, there were paedophile rights groups affiliated to some of the groups, such as Liberty, who are pushing for this. Paedophilia isn't the same thing, but when you have people with a rights agenda, it does show that in many cases people lose their judgement and simply say 'the poor paedophiles' or whatever it is, instead of applying any sort of reason.
thirdcrank wrote:I pay a lot less attention to this than perhaps I should but I thought there were some prominent feminists who were "standing up to this" and getting some flak for doing so. Or perhaps this is more nuanced than I appreciate.
There are feminists who do not accept transwomen. They are a small but very vocal minority of feminists. They are sometimes referred to by the term 'TERF', which is short for trans-exclusionary radical feminists. They generally do not accept the term and may even consider it derogatory.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Vorpal wrote:There are feminists who do not accept transwomen. They are a small but very vocal minority of feminists. They are sometimes referred to by the term 'TERF', which is short for trans-exclusionary radical feminists. They generally do not accept the term and may even consider it derogatory.(My emphasis.)
I wonder if this is the sort of area where there's a silent majority. As I've passed through life as what might be termed a WASAM (white Anglo-Saxon aetheist/agnostic male not to be confused with WAZZOCK) I've tried to be conscious of the beliefs and feelings of others. Part of this involves respecting women's space, both personal space and wider with things like women's separate facilities. Some of this seems to cut across that.
My son is a professional drag act. When he puts womens clothes on he does not become a woman . ... McKinnon et al are men dressed up as women ... they are no different from my son in drag .... Although my son looks a lot more feminine than McKinnon and his mates when he's dressed up ......
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
Be more Mike.
The road goes on forever.
francovendee wrote:From an observational view I've yet to see a transgender person look remotely like a female.
Maybe that's because when a trans gender woman looks like a woman, you accept their gender.
Maybe, but first I'd like to see some evidence, certainly any tv programme where spokeswomen/men has been interviewed their appearance supports my view.
francovendee wrote:From an observational view I've yet to see a transgender person look remotely like a female.
Probably because you don't notice that the ones who do "look remotely like a female" are actually transgender if they aren't wearing a badge to say that they are.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
Plenty of people don't look like their biological gender. Some people are very androgynous, and some look like a gender other than what they are born with.
Also, just because a woman looks like a man or vice versa doesn't mean they are trans.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Vorpal wrote:Plenty of people don't look like their biological gender. Some people are very androgynous, and some look like a gender other than what they are born with.
Also, just because a woman looks like a man or vice versa doesn't mean they are trans.
I suspect that most people, wherever they fit, just want to quietly get on with their life. They don't win races, go on TV or seek public office. So you never know about them.
Oldjohnw wrote:I suspect that most people, wherever they fit, just want to quietly get on with their life. They don't win races, go on TV or seek public office. So you never know about them.
The Trans issue seems to be that the tiny amount of Trans people are demanding their rights, usually by trampling all over the hard won rights of others.
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
Be more Mike.
The road goes on forever.
Oldjohnw wrote:I suspect that most people, wherever they fit, just want to quietly get on with their life. They don't win races, go on TV or seek public office. So you never know about them.
The Trans issue seems to be that the tiny amount of Trans people are demanding their rights, usually by trampling all over the hard won rights of others.
I'm sure this the view of many people and if you dare to say it you get accused of being anti. I think everyone should be allowed to live their lives as they wish as long as it doesn't unfairly effect others.
There seem to be two different views here, which I don't think are easily reconciled.
One is that of women's sport as Cinderella. The solution is perhaps more of the $$$ (more influential than the £££ these days) with better pay for female professionals, better facilities for women and better media coverage. For better, substitute equal. The market has failed to deliver this so regulation might be the only hope.
The other is that the sexual division is a social construction ie without a scientific basis. While we are not all the same, we are on a continuum where differences are blurred. This is where regulations have failed and I find it hard to see a solution other than dropping separate competitions. I suppose I'm being facetious when I say that would have the benefit of reducing the amount of sport on the box. eg The senior championships at Wimbledon would be reduced to two: a singles and a doubles. A negative, at least initially, would be restricting a lot of élite sport to the alpha++ males.
Meanwhile, in other news, I see in the soccer women's World Cup, a top team has thrashed the underdogs 13-0. The wiiners are pictured wildly celebrating their achievement in a way that around here at least, the under 9's would be told from the touchline to grow up. The losers appear to have displayed their sportspersonship by humbly bowing to the spectators. Whoever banned shirt removing celebrations in soccer had a crystal ball. I suppose others will see them as killjoys.
Oldjohnw wrote:I suspect that most people, wherever they fit, just want to quietly get on with their life. They don't win races, go on TV or seek public office. So you never know about them.
The Trans issue seems to be that the tiny amount of Trans people are demanding their rights, usually by trampling all over the hard won rights of others.
Equal rights are equal. It doesn't mean someone else gets anything less.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
