fishbiscuits

I won't use the same terminology as you, EDGuy, as others claim they find "cis" offensive. (And I'm not in total agreement with you on the sporting side). But your closing point is on the money. We can be an ally to both women and transgender people. In fact, we SHOULD!

tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For myself, I find it is inflammatory to refer to > women as "cis" or "genetic women". Horribly > offensive. Women and transwomen covers it fine. Was seeking to disambiguate. I was under the impression they were both commonly used terms. No offence intended. I guess I am OK with women/transwomen as a disambiguation, but very much not OK with calling transitioned trans women "men". I have no doubt that here, offence was very much intended. > The total dismantling of all women's sports Complete hyperbole. One competitor (I admit highly controversial, and likely to be biologically advantaged) out of 5000 does not equal "total dismantling". But nevertheless I understand the concern that female athletes have expressed. It is something that, I dare say, we'll need a solution to IF it becomes commonplace.

You need to understand that respect and support for both women and transgender people is entirely compatible. You don't have to try to turn a trans ally into an enemy of women. I hope you'll consider that (but doubt it). Bye for now... until the next anti-trans post..

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You render that word meaningless by doing so, however, something > that won't help those experiencing actual transphobia. You call trans women "men" and "delusional". You ARE the very embodiment of transphobia.

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Everyone still sure Hubbard beat Manumua fair and square, because she wasn't good enough? I've already agreed that there is a biological advantage. And yes I agree it is problematic. I don't know what more you want from me on that point. The phrase "genetic women" is not intentionally disrespectful or spiteful. I was simply trying to be unambiguous. I could have said "cisgender". I suspect you would have disliked this also. I suspect you won't be satisfied until we all align with your transphobic agenda of labelling trans women as "men".

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But not for women, I notice. This is essentially a straw man argument. You accuse those who disagree with your views of not caring about women. It is complete nonsense. A logical fallacy. Concern for genetic women and trans people is not mutually exclusive.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not what I'm saying - I stand up for T in LGBT and > the rights of Trans women and men. John gets it. The voice of reason. It's an issue we need to find a solution to, without nasty, spiteful language that paves the way for wider transphobia. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its amazing how quick some people are to brand > what in years gone by would have been labelled as > 'a bit off' or disagreeable .......as 'hate'.... > > why does everything need to be so extreme? In my opinion - homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism all fall under the category of hatred. If you don't want to be accused of any of the above, then use respectful language when discussing delicate issues. Misgendering trans people or calling them "delusional" is analogous to racial or homophobic slurs. It is every bit as bad as calling a black person the 'n' word. Probably worse.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Questioning physical fairness of women competing > with other humans with higher > testosterone/strength/power = transgender hatred > > Is that what is being said ? Not at all - at least not from me. I refer you to my above post which I hope clarifies my position > 1) Is it OK for MTF trans athletes to compete > against women? Many people would say no, and > that's fine. I get it. > 2) Is it OK to intentionally call trans women > "men", "he", etc. Accuse them of being delusional. > To call trans athletes "cheats". No. It's now > bordering on hate speech. Questioning the fairness is fine, I agree (of course) that there is a biological advantage. But I strongly believe the language used should be respectful, rather than intentionally offensive.

Yet again... I am beginning to feel like a broken record... but it is possible to acknowledge that things like changing room protocol might need some constructive solutions. Without this spitefulness, misgendering, and conflating trans women with predatory men fraudulently entering women's changing rooms (does this even happen?) The issue actually cuts both ways, as I imagine any trans person who has not yet transitioned and is uncomfortable in their body would rather have some privacy too.

Two separate issues. 1) Is it OK for MTF trans athletes to compete against women? Many people would say no, and that's fine. I get it. 2) Is it OK to intentionally call trans women "men", "he", etc. Accuse them of being delusional. To call trans athletes "cheats". No. It's now bordering on hate speech.

Yes... true colours shown eventually.

Knowing full well how upsetting your language will be to any trans person who happens to read this, you continue. You actually double down. Was it really not possible to debate this perfectly valid subject, without these sweeping insults to all trans people?

It's called misgendering. It's an incredibly insulting thing to say to/about someone who's transitioned.

Wow. "a man who's cheated a woman out of her place".

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not suggesting a Trans section but more a > segregation according to ability/strength - I > don't know how this would work as it's only the > beginnings of an idea and I know that could be > accused of taking the competitivity out of it as > we once did in schools (there are no winners only > competitors) - but the Olympics is failing in my > view anyway and I thought I'd hate the Paralympics > and it's sections .. but actually I prefer it to > the main Olympics - it actually does work in terms > of the viewer. Yes certainly if trans Olympians become commonplace and there is a demonstrable statistical skew in the results, then something will need to be done to ensure fair competition. Some form of calibration perhaps.

I'm not trying to shut you up. It's the lounge. Say whatever you want. I am merely providing a counterpoint to your bigoted views.

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Like JohnL says there should simply be another category. If sport was awash with trans competitors, I would agree. Especially if the results were clearly skewed in their favour. But as things stand, this simply isn't the case. It's rather a niche issue which has attracted a disproportionate reaction. If there was a trans category for Tokyo, it would contain ONE athlete (or two if you include the American BMXer). So not really a practical suggestion at this point in time. I am not saying that everyone should unquestioningly accept Laurel Hubbard as a female competitor. I do actually understand the concern. But I think we need constructive, respectful solutions. Such as inviting trans athletes to participate on an honorary basis alongside genetic females, but excluded from overall medal tally (or maybe create an extra medal position). Or perhaps a calibration based on her performance prior to transition. I don't know. I really don't have the answers. It's hugely complex and I think in the future we'll need nuanced solutions, but I don't think they should involve hyperbole and derogatory language.

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If there's an agenda then what's wrong with it? The agenda is quite obviously a vicious anti-transgender one. Very thinly veiled as a post about sports. It would have been possible to respectfully debate the complexities of transgender athletes, but the OP has not gone that route. - "I won't name that person"... as if she is some sort of despicable criminal - intentionally avoid using female pronoun - "medicalizing children's personalities and wrecking their bodies" - OP's previous history of making VERY one-sided claims about transgender prison inmates

Even if not driveable - you can book a recovery truck to take it to your chosen garage. I've tried a couple of local mobile mechanics in the past, but they couldn't fix the problem properly and I probably wouldn't bother again.

I was under the impression that Delta is particularly resistant to single doses of either vaccine, and really requires both in order to be effective.

You should not be surprised at people's reluctance to endorse your obvious agenda here.

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I started a thread celebrating the efforts and talent of a young woman Glad to hear you follow antipodean women's weightlifting so closely.

I don't have an answer for the correct place for a trans weightlifter to compete. I acknowledge it is a difficult problem. However, this is the second time in recent days you've chosen specifically to start negative conversations about trans women. And I also believe that, in this case, you are concentrating on a VERY fringe issue, which really impacts very few people. Any discussion of male inmates fraudulently identifying as female in order to access female prisons (source?) should be counterbalanced by the facts about assaults AGAINST transgender inmates. Which actually far outnumber those transgender prisoners suspected of carrying out attacks.

Nobody is claiming that trans issues are simple. That finding the correct place for a trans athlete to compete, or the correct prison for trans inmate to serve time is straightforward and clear cut. Quite obviously, crudely categorising all trans women (at any stage of their transition) as female is problematic. But one thing does seem clear cut to me, "oimissus" - you seem to have a particular issue with trans women. Your recent claim that men cross dress in order to get into women's prisons was profoundly offensive. You have now decided to start another thread to air your views. Tell me... were you a keen follower of the sport of weightlifting, before this story hit the news? My thoughts are that people disproportionately focus on fringe issues (such as trans elite athletes or the fairly trivial debate of public toilets) in order to vent their underlying intolerance.

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wasn?t going to allow yet another casual accusation of transphobia > go unaddressed. If casual accusations are not OK, I'd like to make a formal one then.