University of Otago student association gives "sportswoman of the year" award to a man.

[crazyfingers]

You have repeated this three times. I read it the first time. I have processed and understood the fact that you consider some people to have peculiar behaviour.

No. I think some people have peculiar concerns about how others have sex or view gender. It's like people actually think that how others have sex or view gender is a problem that for some reason needs a solution.

What does that have to do with this thread?

Its existence.

 

[Metaphor]

What does that have to do with this thread?

Its existence.

Ah. So, although your previous posts ambiguously referred to 'some people', you mean to include me in the 'some people' who have 'peculiar concerns' about how other people 'have sex or view gender'.

I have almost no concerns about how other people have sex, as long as the people involved are consenting adults (NOT: "enthusiastically consenting" adults, mind. Consenting adults).

I do not care about another person's 'gender' (would you mind defining gender for me?), but I do have a concern with the erosion of sex-based rights.

EDIT: If the only thing you had to say was you find I have 'peculiar concerns', I got it, thanks. You've made that clear four times.

 

[crazyfingers]

What does that have to do with this thread?

Its existence.

Ah. So, although your previous posts ambiguously referred to 'some people', you mean to include me in the 'some people' who have 'peculiar concerns' about how other people 'have sex or view gender'.

I have almost no concerns about how other people have sex, as long as the people involved are consenting adults (NOT: "enthusiastically consenting" adults, mind. Consenting adults).

I do not care about another person's 'gender' (would you mind defining gender for me?), but I do have a concern with the erosion of sex-based rights.

EDIT: If the only thing you had to say was you find I have 'peculiar concerns', I got it, thanks. You've made that clear four times.

I don't define gender. Nor am I interested in defining it for others.

What are sex-based rights. If they exist wouldn't they also create sex based boundaries?

 

[Metaphor]

Ah. So, although your previous posts ambiguously referred to 'some people', you mean to include me in the 'some people' who have 'peculiar concerns' about how other people 'have sex or view gender'.

I have almost no concerns about how other people have sex, as long as the people involved are consenting adults (NOT: "enthusiastically consenting" adults, mind. Consenting adults).

I do not care about another person's 'gender' (would you mind defining gender for me?), but I do have a concern with the erosion of sex-based rights.

EDIT: If the only thing you had to say was you find I have 'peculiar concerns', I got it, thanks. You've made that clear four times.

I don't define gender. Nor am I interested in defining it for others.

What are sex-based rights. If they exist wouldn't they also create sex based boundaries?

Well yes - there are of course sex-based boundaries - though they are being eroded, progressively, depending on the particular jurisdiction. You currently have the right not to be strip searched by a person of the opposite sex (for example, Queensland or NSW in Australia). That is an example of a sex-based right.

 

[Rhea]

Seems like this thread is mis-titled.
Should be: Metaphor disagrees with University of Otago student association’s definition of a woman. Thinks they should listen to him.

 

[laughing dog]

The IOC allowed a man-Laurel Hubbard-to compete against women, and has allowed men to compete against women from 2016.

The energy with which you repeat your erroneous claim does not make it any truer.

Whereas I find callous indifference to the erosion of sex-based rights problematic, and the sneering cloaking of this attitude as if it were the morally defensible ground grotesque.

Unlike you, I find sneering small-minded bigotry is morally indefensible.

 

[Metaphor]

Seems like this thread is mis-titled.
Should be: Metaphor disagrees with University of Otago student association’s definition of a woman. Thinks they should listen to him.

Do you feel this is an appropriate post for a mod to make?

I agree with the first sentence you wrote. The second sentence is false. When I went to university back in the stone age, I was already aware of the intractable, hard left cloud cuckoo land nature of "student unions" -- elected by less than 7 per cent of the student population that took part in elections, but nevertheless supported by compulsory student unionism and fees extracted from students.

What a student union thinks a woman is does not concern me. That strange ideas (like that some men can be women) that began in academia now have increasing public purchase does.

 

[Metaphor]

The energy with which you repeat your erroneous claim does not make it any truer.

I agree that the claim isn't made truer by repetition. It was already true.

Unlike you, I find sneering small-minded bigotry is morally indefensible.

I did not say I found "sneering small-minded bigotry" defensible.

 

[laughing dog]

I agree that the claim isn't made truer by repetition. It was already true.

You are entitled to your religious beliefs.

I did not say I found "sneering small-minded bigotry" defensible.

No one claimed you said that.

BTW - what sex-based right do you think is being eroded by this award?

 

[Toni]

Actually, no man made it into the Olympics to compete against women. According the New Zealand Olympic Committee and the International Olympic committee, no man made it into the Olympics to compete against women. And there is plenty of Olympic history to verify that the IOC has been watching for such occurrences. Perhaps you need to voice your feelings to New Zealand's Olympic committee and the International Olympic committee.

Laurel Hubbard made it in to the Olympics to compete against women, and Laurel Hubbard is a man. That the International Olympic Committee decided that some men can qualify to compete against women by labelling those men 'trans women' does not change the reality of the IOC's decision to allow men to compete against women.

I admire th energy of people who persist flailing away at the inconsequential and fail.

I doubt you admire it, but I consider your indifference to the open erosion of sex-based rights to be callous.

Lauren Hubbard, the team physician, the Olympic committee and doubtless many others have verified that Lauren Hubbard is a woman. Presumably they are more informed about Hubbard’s physical characteristics than you are. Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary.

 

[Metaphor]

You are entitled to your religious beliefs.

There is nothing 'religious' about believing that Laurel Hubbard is an adult human male.

No one claimed you said that.

You claimed I found it defensible. I did not say it and don't believe it.

BTW - what sex-based right do you think is being eroded by this award?

The right for sportswomen to compete against, and have their achievements recognised, in a field that consists only of other women.

 

[Metaphor]

Lauren Hubbard, the team physician, the Olympic committee and doubtless many others have verified that Lauren Hubbard is a woman. Presumably they are more informed about Hubbard’s physical characteristics than you are. Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary.

They have not done any such thing. They have verified that Laurel Hubbard is a transwoman who met the IOC criteria necessary to compete against women. That means they have acknowledged that Laurel Hubbard is a man, as transwomen are men.

 

[crazyfingers]

Does anyone recall the All In The Family episode where Archie Bunker explains about Hismones and Hermones?

 

[laughing dog]

There is nothing 'religious' about believing that Laurel Hubbard is an adult human male.

Of course there is

You claimed I found it defensible. I did not say it and don't believe it.

Your OP is evidence to the contraty.

The right for sportswomen to compete against, and have their achievements recognised, in a field that consists only of other women.

Do you create rights frequently?

 

[Metaphor]

Of course there is

Laurel Hubbard is an adult human male. That is a justified true belief, not a religious belief.

Your OP is evidence to the contraty.

It is not 'small minded' to reject incoherence.

Do you create rights frequently?

No.

 

[laughing dog]

Laurel Hubbard is an adult human male. That is a justified true belief, not a religious belief.

That is your religious belief.

It is not 'small minded' to reject incoherence.

You are not rejecting incohetence .

No.

So this is a one tiime creation of a right. LOL

 

[Metaphor]

That is your religious belief.

There's nothing religious about it.

You are not rejecting incohetence .

I am rejecting incoherence.

So this is a one tiime creation of a right. LOL

No.

 

[Patooka]

Seeing as people are going down the rabbit hole of insisting having an arbitrary definition on what wimin' folk are:


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMeMtabtLiI[/youtube]

Did you just link unironically to a Vaush video?

Do you have something to say about it?

Yep. You're offended.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjBfhVV_u8E[/youtube]

"Fuck off, you cunt". You are offended because some trans person did some shit whatever.

No one gives a fuck.

"Fuckof, you cunt."

 

[Metaphor]

Yep. You're offended.

I'm not offended by you linking to a Vaush video. Amused, perhaps, but not offended.

"Fuck off, you cunt". You are offended because some trans person did some shit whatever.

No one gives a fuck.

"Fuckof, you cunt."

Indeed.

 

[laughing dog]

There's nothing religious about it.

Your fsith there is no errir makes it one.

I am rejecting incoherence.

Thete is no incohetence excrpt fir your claim of incohetence.

No.

There is no such right as your insist.