[W:963][W:#588][W:#502]Transgender swimmer destroying records

[Phys251]

The fact that we are more than 30 pages into just this of many threads about gender and still Aristaeus still doesn't understand that a person being male or female is determined by their psychological gender identity is telling about his intelligence. The fact that he doesn't even acknowledge that it does exist as a critical determinate makes me wonder why anyone bothers to reply to him. He apparently seems to think that he can support or reject facts in a subjective manner because they support his beliefs.

That's the dogma of transphobia for you.

 

[buck]

The fact that we are more than 30 pages into just this of many threads about gender and still Aristaeus still doesn't understand that a person being male or female is determined by their psychological gender identity is telling about his intelligence.

ROFL.

@Aristaeus Just laugh at her. It's all that is necessary, based on the above response.

 

[Aristaeus]

The fact that we are more than 30 pages into just this of many threads about gender and still Aristaeus still doesn't understand that a person being male or female is determined by their psychological gender identity is telling about his intelligence. The fact that he doesn't even acknowledge that it does exist as a critical determinate makes me wonder why anyone bothers to reply to him. He apparently seems to think that he can support or reject facts in a subjective manner because they support his beliefs.

We're talking about sex, not gender. They're not the same thing. Transmen are biologically female (female sex).

Mens/womens sport is divided by sex.

 

[Gatsby]

The fact that we are more than 30 pages into just this of many threads about gender and still Aristaeus still doesn't understand that a person being male or female is determined by their psychological gender identity is telling about his intelligence.

It's almost as though you have rambled for 30 pages without actually saying anything, because your goofy ideology is incoherent. And it's incredibly easy to demonstrate this:

What is a woman?

 

[Phys251]

It's almost as though you have rambled for 30 pages without actually saying anything, because your goofy ideology is incoherent. And it's incredibly easy to demonstrate this:

What is a woman?

^ That coming from the person who said this:

If seeing the word stripper made you think of black people, I agree that's pretty racist. But not on my part.


No, children are not capable of consenting to such things. You have a choice what to do with your body after you turn 18.
In my state, you have to be 18 to get a tattoo, 21 to drink/smoke, and 18 to consent to sex. And pumping your body full of sex hormones is considerably more drastic than any of those things.

No means no. I don't *care* how much you think kids benefit from your obsession with their genitals. They are not capable of consent.

I don't really care if you give them the drugs yourself, or find some shady doctor who obediently tells you what you obviously want to hear. You aren't absolved of responsibility for child abuse just because you found a middleman.

Maybe you should back down from your own rhetoric instead of telling other people to do the same.

 

[Lisa]

ROFL.

@Aristaeus Just laugh at her. It's all that is necessary, based on the above response.

Do you want me to take issue with you and your study of trans teens that supposedly transitioned, despite the fact that they never said that they were trans or were never formally diagnosed as trans, do you? That study doesn't pass the scientific or statistical laugh test, despite the fact that TERFs love to use it as evidence because it supports their transphobic bias.

It's almost as though you have rambled for 30 pages without actually saying anything, because your goofy ideology is incoherent. And it's incredibly easy to demonstrate this:

What is a woman?

Any person who has a female gender identity. Did it take you 30+ in this thread also to learn that? It is that psychological gender identity that is why trans people are treated as they are instead of by their biological gender.

We're talking about sex, not gender. They're not the same thing. Transmen are biologically female (female sex).

Mens/womens sport is divided by sex.

Male and female gender identities are not the same thing either, but you want to ignore that. Do you really think that CIS women in sports will be more equal competing against trans guys who were born female? Most of those trans guys compete on an equal level with CIS men and can beat them. You're just another TERRF who forgot that trans guys exist because this entire argument was about trans females and how to disadvantage them in any possible way because of your fundamentalist gender stance, which was rejected by medical science more than 50 years ago. medical science isn't as simple as you want it to be.

 

[Gatsby]

^ That coming from the person who said this:


Maybe you should back down from your own rhetoric instead of telling other people to do the same.

More rambling, but you couldn't answer the very simple question: What is a woman?

Maybe when you figure out a coherent answer to that question, you can figure out what exactly you're so pissed off about all the time. It's just utterly ridiculous for you to be this invested in who is and isn't a woman when you *don't even have a coherent definition for that word*.

 

[Phys251]

More rambling, but you couldn't answer the very simple question: What is a woman?

Maybe when you figure out a coherent answer to that question, you can figure out what exactly you're so pissed off about all the time. It's just utterly ridiculous for you to be this invested in who is and isn't a woman when you *don't even have a coherent definition for that word*.

You're so tied up in what you feel are correct definitions that you can't calm down and recognize the truth:

There is no scientifically solid definition for "woman." No matter what definition you use, there will be an exception.

 

[Gatsby]

You're so tied up in what you feel are correct definitions

At this point I would settle for you offering up *any* coherent definition of woman at all, correct or not. There's not even any point in wondering whether your definition is correct or not when you don't even have one.

There is no scientifically solid definition for "woman." No matter what definition you use, there will be an exception.

Then your cause is pointless, and you have no need to viciously attack people who want to draw the line between men and women in this-or-that place. If you don't even believe a definition for woman exists in principle, then "Trans women are women" is just meaningless nonsense.

 

[Phys251]

At this point I would settle for you offering up *any* coherent definition of woman at all, correct or not. There's not even any point in wondering whether your definition is correct or not when you don't even have one.

Then your cause is meaningless, and you have no need to viciously attack people who want to draw the line between men and women in this-or-that place.

There's you failing to get the point. Again.

Tell me, Gatsby. Since any definition of "freedom" or "justice" will have some kind of exception, are freedom and justice meaningless concepts? Is all of this meaningless?

 

[Gatsby]

Tell me, Gatsby. Since any definition of "freedom" or "justice"

I can offer reasonably coherent definitions of those concepts without hemming-and-hawing and pretending I don't understand the question. Unfortunately, you cannot say the same for the word woman, which is actually a lot easier to define and a lot less abstract.

will have some kind of exception, are freedom and justice meaningless concepts?

Your analogy doesn't work because you aren't arguing that woman has a concrete definition and we should just talk about making special exceptions for trans people on a case-by-case basis. You are arguing, quite viciously, that trans women ARE women. Even as you also argue that no definition of woman is possible, even in principle.

 

[Phys251]

I can offer reasonably coherent definitions of those concepts without hemming-and-hawing and pretending I don't understand the question. Unfortunately, you cannot say the same for the word woman, which is actually a lot easier to define and a lot less abstract.

OK, let's see your definition of "woman."

Your analogy doesn't work because you aren't arguing that woman has a concrete definition and we should just talk about making special exceptions for trans people on a case-by-case basis. You are arguing, quite viciously, that trans women ARE women. Even as you also argue that no definition of woman is possible, even in principle.

^ See post #855 for an example of throwing stones in glass houses.

 

[Gatsby]

OK, let's see your definition of "woman."

A person who lacks a Y chromosome, has a vagina, and - except for causes of age or bodily disability - is of the sex capable of bearing children.

See? A very simple, coherent definition. Now here comes the part where you google some rare condition and dredge up someone who doesn't quite meet that definition, and you think that this somehow proves that my definition is wrong, and that the entire concept of defining things is wrong. Well, save your breath. For two reasons: 1) Whatever exceptions you find will have precisely nothing to do with trans people, and 2) I'm not against making exceptions for these rare medical cases on a case-by-case basis. What I am against is the toxic movement that suggests that anyone who wants to be in a woman's space should be allowed in, with no questions asked regardless of the circumstances, and that anyone who says otherwise is a bigot.

 

[Phys251]

A person who lacks a Y chromosome, has a vagina, and - except for causes of age or bodily disability - is of the sex capable of bearing children.

What sex is Caster Semenya?

Caster Semenya - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

See? A very simple, coherent definition. Now here comes the part where you find someone with some rare condition that doesn't quite meet that definition, and you think that this somehow proves that the definition is wrong and that the entire concept of defining things is wrong. Well, save your breath. For two reasons: 1) Whatever exceptions you find will have precisely nothing to do with trans people, and 2) I'm not against evaluating these medical exceptions on a case-by-case basis. What I am against is the toxic movement that suggests that anyone who wants to be in a woman's space should be allowed in, with no questions asked regardless of the circumstances, and that anyone who says otherwise is a bigot.

In other words, "la la la not gonna listen." Again with that whole throwing stones in glass houses thing.

 

[Gatsby]

What sex is Caster Semenya?

I literally told you in the previous post that I'm not interested in playing games where you dredge up some rare exception that you think somehow disproves the concept of words having meaning (except when you want them to). Do you even read posts before you respond with hate and bile?

This person isn't trans and so is irrelevant to whatever point you think you are making.

 

[Phys251]

I literally told you in the previous post that I'm not interested in playing games where you dredge up some rare exception that you think somehow disproves the concept of words having meaning (except when you want them to). Do you even read posts before you respond with hate and bile?

This person isn't trans and so is irrelevant to whatever point you think you are making.

^ Called it. Twice. I specifically said:

There is no scientifically solid definition for "woman." No matter what definition you use, there will be an exception.

To be a scientific definition, it MUST be airtight, no exceptions. Yet here you are flailing with one.

And Semenya is far from the only example, so you can stop whining about that too. Your "definition" of woman completely ignores intersex people. It's as if they are a whole class of people whom you don't want to recognize.

 

[BirdinHand]

What sex is Caster Semenya?

Caster Semenya - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In other words, "la la la not gonna listen." Again with that whole throwing stones in glass houses thing.

Caster Semenya = disqualified from competing in women’s sports (specifically track races under 1 miles) in the Olympics because of high testosterone levels.

Because the Olympic committees have determined that unless she reduces her testosterone levels to a certain threshold, she has an unfair biological advantage compared to other women athletes.

Which is what this entire conversation boils down to…unfair physical advantages based on testosterone levels that are abnormally high when compared to women athletes.

The Penn swimmer doesn’t have to maintain testosterone levels below a threshold…perhaps the NCAA should put rules in place consistent with the Olympics.

Testosterone level over X and you can not compete against biological women.

 

[Phys251]

Caster Semenya = disqualified from competing in women’s sports (specifically track races under 1 miles) in the Olympics because of high testosterone levels.

Because the Olympic committees have determined that unless she reduces her testosterone levels to a certain threshold, she has an unfair biological advantage compared to other women athletes.

Which is what this entire conversation boils down to.

You dodged the whole reason why I brought her up. The question is whether she is a woman. Is she?

 

[BirdinHand]

You dodged the whole reason why I brought her up. The question is whether she is a woman. Is she?

The Olympic committee made the point of disqualifying her and other athletes with high testosterone levels from competing in women’s events because of an unfair advantage that comes with the testosterone levels.

I’d say that’s the exact point of this entire conversation.

Thank you for helping to remind me of this case, I couldn’t remember the exact names of the individuals that have been barred from competition.

 

[buck]

Do you want me to take issue with you and your study of trans teens that supposedly transitioned, despite the fact that they never said that they were trans or were never formally diagnosed as trans, do you? That study doesn't pass the scientific or statistical laugh test, despite the fact that TERFs love to use it as evidence because it supports their transphobic bias.

Lmfao.

 

[buck]

I found this video intersting. Takes available clips from the internet (many of which I've seen b4) and ties them together to create a narrative. Bonus, you get a great Dan Deacon song.

 

[Phys251]

The Olympic committee made the point of disqualifying her and other athletes with high testosterone levels from competing in women’s events because of an unfair advantage that comes with the testosterone levels.

I’d say that’s the exact point of this entire conversation.

Thank you for helping to remind me of this case, I couldn’t remember the exact names of the individuals that have been barred from competition.

Again you dodged the question. Not a good look for you.

 

[Phys251]

Lmfao.

Did you have anything intelligent to add to this thread?

 

[Lisa]

I found this video intersting. Takes available clips from the internet (many of which I've seen b4) and ties them together to create a narrative. Bonus, you get a great Dan Deacon song.

That doesn't pass the laugh test. It starts with religious imagery at the beginning and it only gets worse. It's like "Reefer Madness" but for gender.

Did you have anything intelligent to add to this thread?

That internet raspberry best that he can do. His attempt at a rational argument has obviously failed.

 

[Gatsby]

To be a scientific definition, it MUST be airtight, no exceptions. Yet here you are flailing with one.

You are just arguing semantics, not science. Whether you want to make a definitional exception for a person like this is just a judgment call. If you want to call this person a man for not fitting into the definition of woman I provided above, fine, I don't really care.

And Semenya is far from the only example, so you can stop whining about that too. Your "definition" of woman completely ignores intersex people. It's as if they are a whole class of people whom you don't want to recognize.

Their issues have nothing to do with trans people, and many of them want nothing to do with your bizarre crusade.