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

[laughing dog]

Only to the small-minded and the cruel.

This is such science-denying crap.

Grow up. Gender identity and sex identity are different. Gender identity does not require the juvenile "Men has penises, woman have vaginas" refrain.

 

[Trausti]

Exciting new developments in grievance studies!

Will the marginalized gauchers topple the uncanny Ex-Men from their high perch on the progressive stack?

 

[Emily Lake]

You are the one who espouses the undefined "general commonality", not me. You are the one mandating physical and social experiences in order to qualify as a woman, not me.

This is absurd. If someone is born in Korea, grows up in Korea, and is exposed to Korean culture throughout their lives... Do you think there are some common generalized experience that they will have, and which are different from someone who was born and raise in Algeria? Does this imply that every single person in Korea has exactly the same experience? Or that any of those experiences are 'mandated'? I think not. But I do think that the generalized experience of being Korean is different from the generalized experience of being Algerian. And while a whole lot of the qualitative elements of that experience can (and probably will) vary considerably from person to person, at least some of those elements are necessary conditions. Like, for example, growing up in Korea or growing up in Algeria. I would argue that someone born and raised in Korea wouldn't reasonably be able to refer to their experience as "an Algerian" experience, because they have not and cannot have had the formative experiences of growing up in Algeria.

One could argue that a person whose parents immigrated to Korea from Algeria would have an exposure to their parents' telling of an Algerian experience. They may have a second-hand understanding of an Algerian experience. They could even have some Algerian traditions that their household practices.

But what they cannot lay claim to is to have experienced first-hand being Algerian.

Similarly, a person born female, with a female body, in a society that imposes social stereotypes on the basis of sex, will have a general common experience of being a female. That does not mean that every single female will have exactly the same experience. It does, however, mean that they have a generally common experience that other females would recognize as being comparable to their own. A male will not have had that experience. And a female will not have had a male experience.

Not every single female is going to get pregnant, even though most females do. On the other hand, no female will have a wet dream. And no male will ever get pregnant.

Instead, how about you explain to me what experience of womanhood do you think Hubbard has had? Can you elaborate, or even speculate?

It is unnecessary for Laurel Hubbard's gender identity to speculate on possible "experiences of womanhood".

This is a cop-out. You're the one insisting that Hubbard is a woman, not me. At the best, I would say that Hubbard wishes to be perceived as a woman, but I do not think they succeed in actualizing that desire. In some cases, I think it is courteous and reasonable to treat Hubbard as if he is a woman, because there's no call to be a douchcanoe. But there are other situations where I do not think it's at all reasonable to bend to Hubbard's desire to be treated like a woman. Like when it comes to sports, where regardless of hormone therapy and makeup, Hubbard is unquestionably a male.

If you want to make the claim that Hubbard *should* be treated like a woman in all situations, I think it's incumbent upon you to give a good explanation of *why* they should be, and to what extent.

 

[Metaphor]

Your seemingly inability to distinguish between sex and gender is fascinating.

I've been very clear about the difference.

What I'm not clear about is why a thought in Laurel Hubbard's head should supplant his sex in sex-segregated sports?

Why isn't Rachel Dolezal black?

 

[Emily Lake]

Only to the small-minded and the cruel.

This is such science-denying crap.

Grow up. Gender identity and sex identity are different. Gender identity does not require the juvenile "Men has penises, woman have vaginas" refrain.

I have no problem with gender identity being whatever the heck a person thinks about themselves. That doesn't mean I have to accept their view of themselves as being in any way real or reasonable. And it definitely doesn't suggest that I should allow a person's internal subjective gender identity to override the reality of sex.

 

[Trausti]

Grow up. Gender identity and sex identity are different. Gender identity does not require the juvenile "Men has penises, woman have vaginas" refrain.

I have no problem with gender identity being whatever the heck a person thinks about themselves. That doesn't mean I have to accept their view of themselves as being in any way real or reasonable. And it definitely doesn't suggest that I should allow a person's internal subjective gender identity to override the reality of sex.

You also shouldn’t be compelled to participate in someone else’s sexual fantasy.

 

[laughing dog]

Your seemingly inability to distinguish between sex and gender is fascinating.

I've been very clear about the difference.

What I'm not clear about is why a thought in Laurel Hubbard's head should supplant his sex in sex-segregated sports?

It is not up to you to decide. It was up to the New Zealand Olympic Committee and the IOC to decide. If you were really interested, you'd be asking them .

Why isn't Rachel Dolezal black?

Ah, the old boring persist in stupid straw man question routine.

 

[laughing dog]

This is absurd....

I agree. Why you persist in it is beyone me.

This is a cop-out. You're the one insisting that Hubbard is a woman, not me. ....

I am not insisting in anything. I note Laurel Hubbard presents as a woman and who claims her gender identity as woman. You don't have to accept an effing thing. But both the New Zealand Olympic Committee and the IOC accepted that Laurel Hubbard could compete in the Woman's Olympic. Apparently they no longer think of Olympic sports as being segregated by sex but by gender. I get that this upsets some people. I hope they can get over their pique, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

I have no problem with gender identity being whatever the heck a person thinks about themselves. That doesn't mean I have to accept their view of themselves as being in any way real or reasonable. And it definitely doesn't suggest that I should allow a person's internal subjective gender identity to override the reality of sex.

Since how a person thinks about themself usually does depend on how they are perceived, they would have a problem with your "no problem".

 

[Metaphor]

Ah, the old boring persist in stupid straw man question routine.

Why isn't Rachel Dolezal black?

 

[laughing dog]

Ah, the old boring persist in stupid straw man question routine.

Why isn't Rachel Dolezal black?

Persisting in your boring stupid straw man question routine only serves to prove my point.

 

[Trausti]

Imagine inventing the concept of gender in order to displace the biological concept of sex, yet also taking the far more clearly constructed concept of race as grounds for an immutable moral ontology.

I feel true sympathy for minds burdened by such profound cognitive dissonance.

 

[Elixir]

...it definitely doesn't suggest that I should allow a person's internal subjective gender identity to override the reality of sex.

I think that's the correct approach if you're considering having sex with them.

 

[Metaphor]

Ah, the old boring persist in stupid straw man question routine.

Why isn't Rachel Dolezal black?

Persisting in your boring stupid straw man question routine only serves to prove my point.

If the question were answered I wouldn't keep asking it.

Precisely why you think the question is a 'straw man' I'm sure I don't know.

 

[laughing dog]

Persisting in your boring stupid straw man question routine only serves to prove my point.

If the question were answered I wouldn't keep asking it.

Precisely why you think the question is a 'straw man' I'm sure I don't know.

Finally, you got something right. It is a straw man because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the transgendered. Duh.

 

[Jarhyn]

Persisting in your boring stupid straw man question routine only serves to prove my point.

If the question were answered I wouldn't keep asking it.

Precisely why you think the question is a 'straw man' I'm sure I don't know.

Finally, you got something right. It is a straw man because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the transgendered. Duh.

Not to mention that the whole reason that it is unethical to claim one is black is the same thing that CRT, something else metaphor seems to think is not accurate, predicts: that being black is about how society at large treats people and gives or withholds advantages of society on the basis of a seeming.

This is about Metaphor INSISTING on the seeming being both accurate and a basis for discrimination by proxy. And then in another thread claiming there is no systemic disadvantage in the first place.

The rest of us acknowledge that in any situation, only the relevant factors to the actual topic of discussion should be brought in, and nothing else.

The problem here is conflation with identifying as black (culture, language, friends, concerns, priorities) and with identifying as black (had social disadvantages on the basis of seeming).

The thing is, this is not a situation that transfers to gender identification: identifying as causes the same general disadvantages in employment and on the street. It means the same pink tax, it means the same catcalls (or worse!) It means the same fear of rape and assault as many people who both meta and Emily freely accept as women.

So what that the don't fear pregnancy?

An ass rapes just as traumatically as a vagina. A penis is no magic Ward against it; it just means you're more likely to be murdered afterward.

They just deny civility to such because "science", as if the last time we brought "science" into discussions of how to treat people in society ended well. It's almost as if the science that is valuable, contextually, to the discussion is social science rather than biology.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If the question were answered I wouldn't keep asking it.

I've raised or babysat enough toddlers to know that isn't always true.

 

[Emily Lake]

...it definitely doesn't suggest that I should allow a person's internal subjective gender identity to override the reality of sex.

I think that's the correct approach if you're considering having sex with them.

Or considering whether to allow a person with male genitals into a women's prison or the changing room where the middle school swim team showers.

I think that the view that 'considering having sex with them' is the only time that sex matters is a fairly male perspective on it. Sex ends up being a far more impactful and pertinent element of the lives of women that most men really grok.

 

[Metaphor]

Persisting in your boring stupid straw man question routine only serves to prove my point.

If the question were answered I wouldn't keep asking it.

Precisely why you think the question is a 'straw man' I'm sure I don't know.

Finally, you got something right. It is a straw man because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the transgendered. Duh.

On the contrary, the parallel is quite striking. Rachel Dolezal was assigned white at birth, but had a sense of being black. This sense was so strong that she began to pass as black and claimed to be black. But instead of her 'racial identity' of 'black' being accepted, she was pilloried.

But why shouldn't Rachel Dolezal be accepted as black based on her 'racial identity', when you accept Laurel Hubbard as a woman based on his 'gender identity'?

 

[Metaphor]

If the question were answered I wouldn't keep asking it.

I've raised or babysat enough toddlers to know that isn't always true.

Why isn't Rachel Dolezal black?

 

[Metaphor]

Finally, you got something right. It is a straw man because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the transgendered. Duh.

Not to mention that the whole reason that it is unethical to claim one is black is the same thing that CRT, something else metaphor seems to think is not accurate, predicts: that being black is about how society at large treats people and gives or withholds advantages of society on the basis of a seeming.

This is about Metaphor INSISTING on the seeming being both accurate and a basis for discrimination by proxy. And then in another thread claiming there is no systemic disadvantage in the first place.

The rest of us acknowledge that in any situation, only the relevant factors to the actual topic of discussion should be brought in, and nothing else.

The problem here is conflation with identifying as black (culture, language, friends, concerns, priorities) and with identifying as black (had social disadvantages on the basis of seeming).

The thing is, this is not a situation that transfers to gender identification: identifying as causes the same general disadvantages in employment and on the street. It means the same pink tax, it means the same catcalls (or worse!) It means the same fear of rape and assault as many people who both meta and Emily freely accept as women.

So what that the don't fear pregnancy?

An ass rapes just as traumatically as a vagina. A penis is no magic Ward against it; it just means you're more likely to be murdered afterward.

They just deny civility to such because "science", as if the last time we brought "science" into discussions of how to treat people in society ended well. It's almost as if the science that is valuable, contextually, to the discussion is social science rather than biology.

Jarhyn once again demonstrating his unbelievable narcissism of pretending to know what I think or said.