Trans activists: Trans women should not be required to suppress testosterone to play on women's teams

[repoman]

What does it really mean to be a "winner" or more "competitive" in a contact sport if it is almost guaranteed that running all of that force through your joints will mean much more intense arthritis in middle and old age compared to less strong and committed athletes?

Congratulations your life will be a living hell.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't believe people should need to cite 'safety' in order to justify single sex spaces.

I have an extreme example: I have (a long time ago) attended male-only sex on premises venues. I believe that the men who use this space don't want transmen in them, especially transmen who have not had any surgeries. Men are not afraid of transmen; it should be enough for us to say 'we just don't want them in that space'.

People need to justify sexist "single sex spaces" in the first place. YOU need to justify single sex spaces.

Now, you can certainly have your "private club", and everyone in the world is free to identify your "private club" as being full of shitty people that expect people to have surgeries to be accepted; that this is a fundamental shittiness, in fact.

There are ways and rules under which you can make such a private event. It does mean you are afraid of them afraid for some reason of having them in that space.

It is "sex based" discrimination.

And again, I'm going to iterate this yet again: you have no right to the knowledge of what is in someone else's pants unless they show or tell you themselves. I will acknowledge no claimed right to reveal that of anyone else either, short of their consent to do so.

My justification for a single-sex sex-on-premises venue is "I want one".

I don't need any further justification than that.

Yeah, actually you do, to have a public event. Public events must be open to the public, without regard to sex.

I can use that justification I WANT, too. My justification for <insert unethical action here>?

You can have your private club, and keep it private. I even said it's entirely possible. And everyone in the world is then allowed to judge you for it, and they can! And they will! And I do

You decry exclusion of "men" plenty.

 

[Metaphor]

I can use that justification I WANT, too. My justification for <insert unethical action here>?

That's terrible that you think you can justify unethical actions just because you want to do the unethical action.

You can have your private club, and keep it private. I even said it's entirely possible. And everyone in the world is then allowed to judge you for it, and they can! And they will! And I do

You decry exclusion of "men" plenty.

Actually, the vast majority of places that exclude people by sex are not unethical and don't bother me, but it depends on how it is done.

I don't give a shit about women only gyms. If there are enough women who want to exercise only around other women, let 'em. I'm not paying membership fees. I don't care. If that's what they want, it is sufficient for them to say "because I want it". I am not harmed by their club. I don't qualify for membership and I don't want membership.

I never gave a shit about the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival or its "womyn-born womyn" policy or any other ridiculous but privately-funded thing lesbian feminists do. Let them all listen to shit music together outdoors and shit in rent-a-loos. I don't have to pay for it and I don't want to participate, and it means possibly they bother the general public less when they've voluntarily corralled themselves away from civilisation for a few days.

The story about the female-only island getaway for incredibly pampered wealthy women - SuperShe island - made me chuckle. I mean, you couldn't make this shit up. Whoever said women weren't funny!

I'd be more concerned about a gym that charged men and women the same for membership, but provided an exclusive 'women's hour' on a regular basis. This makes the gym membership less valuable for men (because they now have fewer hours in which they can access it), yet they're being charged the same price. I'd consider dropping membership if I were a member of such a gym. I'd also be bothered by university spaces, subsidised by the university, that excluded people based on some characteristic. So, I object to "women only" spaces on campuses, unless there is an equivalent "men only" space, because all students are forced to pay for it.

Bullshit nightclub garbage that gives women (but not men) a free drink upon arrival is stupid and demeaning to women, but I wouldn't try to close them down because of it. I don't go to nightclubs and I simply wouldn't go to one that had a policy like that. Anyway, I haven't seen stuff like that for many years. I do recall once reading about a lesbian club that had free drinks for femmes, but I gather that kind of policy would no longer fly.

I'd be more concerned about any event that was on public land or was partly or completely subsidised by any public money and some people were deliberately kept out by sex, unless there were two events equally subsidised.

 

[TSwizzle]

World Rugby look set to ban trans women from playing in women's rugby;

World Rugby is considering banning trans women from playing women’s rugby because of significant safety concerns that have emerged following recent research, a decision that would make it the first international sports federation to go down that path. The Guardian can reveal that in a 38-page draft document produced by its transgender working group, it is acknowledged that there is likely to be “at least a 20-30% greater risk” of injury when a female player is tackled by someone who has gone through male puberty. The document also says the latest science shows that trans women retain “significant” physical advantages over biological women even after they take medication to lower their testosterone. As a result, World Rugby’s working group suggests that its current rules, which allow trans women to play women’s rugby if they lower their testosterone levels for at least 12 months in line with the International Olympic Committee’s guidelines, are “not fit for the purpose”. The draft proposals are likely to be seen by women’s groups as an important new approach towards the sensitive issue of trans inclusion, one based on biological sex and the latest science rather than how someone identifies.

Teh Gruaniad

 

[repoman]

World Rugby look set to ban trans women from playing in women's rugby;

World Rugby is considering banning trans women from playing women’s rugby because of significant safety concerns that have emerged following recent research, a decision that would make it the first international sports federation to go down that path. The Guardian can reveal that in a 38-page draft document produced by its transgender working group, it is acknowledged that there is likely to be “at least a 20-30% greater risk” of injury when a female player is tackled by someone who has gone through male puberty. The document also says the latest science shows that trans women retain “significant” physical advantages over biological women even after they take medication to lower their testosterone. As a result, World Rugby’s working group suggests that its current rules, which allow trans women to play women’s rugby if they lower their testosterone levels for at least 12 months in line with the International Olympic Committee’s guidelines, are “not fit for the purpose”. The draft proposals are likely to be seen by women’s groups as an important new approach towards the sensitive issue of trans inclusion, one based on biological sex and the latest science rather than how someone identifies.

Teh Gruaniad

So, will the woke corporations decide to desponsor this sport?

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't believe people should need to cite 'safety' in order to justify single sex spaces.

I have an extreme example: I have (a long time ago) attended male-only sex on premises venues. I believe that the men who use this space don't want transmen in them, especially transmen who have not had any surgeries. Men are not afraid of transmen; it should be enough for us to say 'we just don't want them in that space'.

People need to justify sexist "single sex spaces" in the first place. YOU need to justify single sex spaces.

Now, you can certainly have your "private club", and everyone in the world is free to identify your "private club" as being full of shitty people that expect people to have surgeries to be accepted; that this is a fundamental shittiness, in fact.

There are ways and rules under which you can make such a private event. It does mean you are afraid of them afraid for some reason of having them in that space.

It is "sex based" discrimination.

And again, I'm going to iterate this yet again: you have no right to the knowledge of what is in someone else's pants unless they show or tell you themselves. I will acknowledge no claimed right to reveal that of anyone else either, short of their consent to do so.

I'm wondering if you maybe missed the fact that Metaphor is talking about a literal sex club. Like a place where gay men go and have sex with each other. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable venue to have a "penis required" clause.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't believe people should need to cite 'safety' in order to justify single sex spaces.

I have an extreme example: I have (a long time ago) attended male-only sex on premises venues. I believe that the men who use this space don't want transmen in them, especially transmen who have not had any surgeries. Men are not afraid of transmen; it should be enough for us to say 'we just don't want them in that space'.

People need to justify sexist "single sex spaces" in the first place. YOU need to justify single sex spaces.

Now, you can certainly have your "private club", and everyone in the world is free to identify your "private club" as being full of shitty people that expect people to have surgeries to be accepted; that this is a fundamental shittiness, in fact.

There are ways and rules under which you can make such a private event. It does mean you are afraid of them afraid for some reason of having them in that space.

It is "sex based" discrimination.

And again, I'm going to iterate this yet again: you have no right to the knowledge of what is in someone else's pants unless they show or tell you themselves. I will acknowledge no claimed right to reveal that of anyone else either, short of their consent to do so.

I'm wondering if you maybe missed the fact that Metaphor is talking about a literal sex club. Like a place where gay men go and have sex with each other. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable venue to have a "penis required" clause.

Oh, yeah sure, if the offering is supposed to be "men with penises who like men with penises", that is a perfectly acceptable private club.

But those are hardly "public" events, either, usually.

That is literally in the bedroom. Granted most places I know wouldn't turn down a trans dude, and most groups, all but the most bigoted, old, moldy-dicked wart farms, have members who wouldn't say no to some horizontal action with a guy with a pussy.

Then, the last time I heard of a sex club running in my city, I had a friend who went and everyone there was just sad, to the point where you could almost give them a pity fuck.

The cops raided it a few months later.

But the thread isn't about sex. The thread is about putting leather balls into nets or over fences, or whatever.

Genitals don't matter for that.

Neither do the interactions I have with the vast majority of everyone everywhere for any other purpose. I haven't had to know what was in someone's pants for any reason for years. I haven't cared. I haven't thought about it. I don't need to differentiate people on that basis with language. Most people seek to be differentiated for whatever social reason; they have people or ideas to emulate, and good on them for doing it. But I'm not going to assume what they "mean" by that, or "what that means" of them. They'll either show me, or they won't.

Personally, I think the meaning is just made up and the only people this confuses seems to be you lot. You haven't justified sex segregation except for the literal purposes of sexual preference in a sexual setting. Now do sports.

Because for sports, it's hormones. And only hormones, really: which ones you got, and for how long.

 

[Emily Lake]

Granted most places I know wouldn't turn down a trans dude, and most groups, all but the most bigoted, old, moldy-dicked wart farms, have members who wouldn't say no to some horizontal action with a guy with a pussy.

Are you of the opinion that if a gay guy is turned off by a "dude with a pussy", then he is by definition a bigot? Are you of the opinion that if a lesbian doesn't want to have sex with a woman with a penis, she must also by definition be bigoted?

 

[Metaphor]

Granted most places I know wouldn't turn down a trans dude, and most groups, all but the most bigoted, old, moldy-dicked wart farms, have members who wouldn't say no to some horizontal action with a guy with a pussy.

Are you of the opinion that if a gay guy is turned off by a "dude with a pussy", then he is by definition a bigot? Are you of the opinion that if a lesbian doesn't want to have sex with a woman with a penis, she must also by definition be bigoted?

Don't forget "old" and "moldy-dicked wart farm".

Though I'll say Jarhyn does more to turn people against transgender ideological excess than I ever could.

 

[repoman]

Uhh, one thing is that transmen usually are more convincing as men than transwomen are as women. Because masculinaztion seems to be more of a one way street of added muscular, hair and bone growth.

If a gay man is androphilic and not just only cock hungry, he may find the hormone induced masculine features of a transman enough to sell the product as it were. But likely it would be a transman who had a more androgynous body to begin with as a woman.

 

[Jarhyn]

Granted most places I know wouldn't turn down a trans dude, and most groups, all but the most bigoted, old, moldy-dicked wart farms, have members who wouldn't say no to some horizontal action with a guy with a pussy.

Are you of the opinion that if a gay guy is turned off by a "dude with a pussy", then he is by definition a bigot? Are you of the opinion that if a lesbian doesn't want to have sex with a woman with a penis, she must also by definition be bigoted?

No, I think that sports have nothing to do with what turns who on.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Granted most places I know wouldn't turn down a trans dude, and most groups, all but the most bigoted, old, moldy-dicked wart farms, have members who wouldn't say no to some horizontal action with a guy with a pussy.

Are you of the opinion that if a gay guy is turned off by a "dude with a pussy", then he is by definition a bigot? Are you of the opinion that if a lesbian doesn't want to have sex with a woman with a penis, she must also by definition be bigoted?

Don't forget "old" and "moldy-dicked wart farm".

Though I'll say Jarhyn does more to turn people against transgender ideological excess than I ever could.

It's possible you have a similar effect in the opposite direction. I was a cisgender gay dude before I started reading your posts.

 

[Jarhyn]

Don't forget "old" and "moldy-dicked wart farm".

Though I'll say Jarhyn does more to turn people against transgender ideological excess than I ever could.

It's possible you have a similar effect in the opposite direction. I was a cisgender gay dude before I started reading your posts.

"Ideological excess" for simply wanting to not be BANNED UNIVERSALLY because one or two particularly squicked dudes who hate transguys that much? If that's enough to 'turn people against trans men', then it isn't about the thing really; that just tells me they wanted to hate and this is just their fig leaf.

There's a world of difference between "you are banned" and "I personally don't want to engage sexually with that one person".

Of course trans men, especially gay trans men, have different issues: too many "pussy tourists", and "plastic dick syndrome". It's hard to find a gay guy who will casually bang a pussy like it's an ass and not make a big deal over it, and it's just less fun to peg someone when you can't feel your dick.

But seriously, "ideological excess" they sound like Lovecraft with his "decadence" bullshit, especially while arguing for and defending gay sex clubs that exclude trans people entirely.

LOL! Trans people wanting genitals (or even just hormones) that match their brain's expectations for the body, and to have access to playing SPORTS based on the hormones they have and the puberties they have experienced, that's EXCESS, but when gay people want to have public orgy spaces where NO PUSSY ALLOWED, that's not excess, no sir.

 

[Emily Lake]

Granted most places I know wouldn't turn down a trans dude, and most groups, all but the most bigoted, old, moldy-dicked wart farms, have members who wouldn't say no to some horizontal action with a guy with a pussy.

Are you of the opinion that if a gay guy is turned off by a "dude with a pussy", then he is by definition a bigot? Are you of the opinion that if a lesbian doesn't want to have sex with a woman with a penis, she must also by definition be bigoted?

No, I think that sports have nothing to do with what turns who on.

I don't understand your answer. Sports has nothing at all to do with what I asked. Can you explain further please?

 

[Emily Lake]

"Ideological excess" for simply wanting to not be BANNED UNIVERSALLY because one or two particularly squicked dudes who hate transguys that much? If that's enough to 'turn people against trans men', then it isn't about the thing really; that just tells me they wanted to hate and this is just their fig leaf.

...


It's hard to find a gay guy who will casually bang a pussy like it's an ass and not make a big deal over it, and it's just less fun to peg someone when you can't feel your dick.

Two things. First, your two comments here seem contradictory. Is it only one or two gay guys that aren't into pussy enough to want it not present in their sex club? Or are there few gay guys that are into banging pussy?

Secondly... Do you also think that gay sex clubs should be forced to admit people who identify as women into their club as well?

but when gay people want to have public orgy spaces where NO PUSSY ALLOWED, that's not excess, no sir.

Kind of sounds like you want to have your cunt and get it eaten too.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't believe people should need to cite 'safety' in order to justify single sex spaces.

I have an extreme example: I have (a long time ago) attended male-only sex on premises venues. I believe that the men who use this space don't want transmen in them, especially transmen who have not had any surgeries. Men are not afraid of transmen; it should be enough for us to say 'we just don't want them in that space'.

People need to justify sexist "single sex spaces" in the first place. YOU need to justify single sex spaces.

Now, you can certainly have your "private club", and everyone in the world is free to identify your "private club" as being full of shitty people that expect people to have surgeries to be accepted; that this is a fundamental shittiness, in fact.

There are ways and rules under which you can make such a private event. It does mean you are afraid of them afraid for some reason of having them in that space.

It is "sex based" discrimination.

And again, I'm going to iterate this yet again: you have no right to the knowledge of what is in someone else's pants unless they show or tell you themselves. I will acknowledge no claimed right to reveal that of anyone else either, short of their consent to do so.

I'm wondering if you maybe missed the fact that Metaphor is talking about a literal sex club. Like a place where gay men go and have sex with each other. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable venue to have a "penis required" clause.

One would think that. But for whatever reason that's a major drama in the LBTQ community. I hang out a lot with queers and it's very often a thing. Transmen get very offended when excluded from male only functions. In spite of men being very cruel and harsh in how they don't invite cis gay men simply based on that they're not hot enough, or for whatever bullshit minor reason. It's like transmen want a special free pass on not having to be as hot, but getting invited anyway. It's very odd. Especially since "everybody should feel welcome" is something we associate with women socialising. Not men.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yeah, sucks for them.

I think the whole point is to find an arrangement that doesn't suck for them.

Is it possible? What is your suggestion?

..Men's sports, women's' sports, and trans' sports?
..Have all sports open to any sex?

Women's sports were created so women could compete on a level playing field among themselves rather than competing with men. Introducing trans participants un-levels that playing field.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Ideological excess" for simply wanting to not be BANNED UNIVERSALLY because one or two particularly squicked dudes who hate transguys that much? If that's enough to 'turn people against trans men', then it isn't about the thing really; that just tells me they wanted to hate and this is just their fig leaf.

...


It's hard to find a gay guy who will casually bang a pussy like it's an ass and not make a big deal over it, and it's just less fun to peg someone when you can't feel your dick.

Two things. First, your two comments here seem contradictory. Is it only one or two gay guys that aren't into pussy enough to want it not present in their sex club? Or are there few gay guys that are into banging pussy?

Secondly... Do you also think that gay sex clubs should be forced to admit people who identify as women into their club as well?

but when gay people want to have public orgy spaces where NO PUSSY ALLOWED, that's not excess, no sir.

Kind of sounds like you want to have your cunt and get it eaten too.

Yes, gay clubs should absolutely be forced to allow women in the door if they are "open to the public" or a "public business". You do know that women can be gay, too, right?

Now, I won't say I don't blame you for misreading. I actually judge you quite harshly for it: it's entirely possible for gay men to both be alright with banging a pussy if it's attached to a man, and at the same time be a complete fucking idiot socially, while going about it (in the same way that I doubt most straight men's ability to operate a pussy satisfactorily).

Of course if you are talking private clubs, they can do whatever they want, and I continue pointing this out.

 

[Trausti]

Two things. First, your two comments here seem contradictory. Is it only one or two gay guys that aren't into pussy enough to want it not present in their sex club? Or are there few gay guys that are into banging pussy?

Secondly... Do you also think that gay sex clubs should be forced to admit people who identify as women into their club as well?



Kind of sounds like you want to have your cunt and get it eaten too.

Yes, gay clubs should absolutely be forced to allow women in the door if they are "open to the public" or a "public business". You do know that women can be gay, too, right?

Now, I won't say I don't blame you for misreading. I actually judge you quite harshly for it: it's entirely possible for gay men to both be alright with banging a pussy if it's attached to a man, and at the same time be a complete fucking idiot socially, while going about it (in the same way that I doubt most straight men's ability to operate a pussy satisfactorily).

Of course if you are talking private clubs, they can do whatever they want, and I continue pointing this out.

“banging a pussy if it’s attached to a man.” We live in such stupid times.

 

[ruby sparks]

“banging a pussy if it’s attached to a man.” We live in such stupid times.

One can only, as ever, admire your open-mindedness and your liberal and progressive mindset.

Apparently, quite a few aboriginal and/or native/indigenous cultures were, in the past (and indeed some still apparently are) more relaxed than we are about gender fluidity and about having more than just two fixed categories. And I read that a lot of such tolerance was very heavily discouraged by invading white, 'western', conservative, christian colonists.

So it's not entirely clear which times are/were stupid about this.