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

[none]

Well unlike most adult children, some just don't get written words
Is that better?

No.

Yeah, words is one syllable.

 

[none]

Dejavu

 

[Bomb#20]

Back to the topic and to Metaphor, the question I would ask you is:

what is it that would really be lost for you, even if it meant perhaps changing your mind, to accept that some small minority of people
...
c) at the end of this process, they’ve successfully “become” that other sex, ...
Getting to stage “C”, as you’ve made unmistakably clear, is your sticking point—you’ve adamantly labelled it an impossibility—and you do it with a fervor that, I’m sorry, DOES closely resemble the closedmindedness of Young Earth Creationists. ...
I guess I’m asking, why do you care (and, please don’t tell me that you don’t) if Carl wants so bad to be Carla (because for his entire life he’s felt he’s a girl walking around in a boy’s body, and later a woman in a man’s body) that he spends many thousands of dollars and endures painful recoveries to do everything physically possible to transform his body into that of a woman, including breasts, a vagina, smooth legs?
What is so important to you (because something clearly is) about being able to scoff, “Nope. Still a man”?

...
SOMETHING really sticks in your craw about trans people. ... as far as I can see, you’re irrationally concerned about something that doesn’t affect you, much if at all, and adamant to the point of stubbornness on the premise that people can’t [effectively] change sexes.

What would you be giving up to grant that, yes, ... some people [effectively, if you must] ‘change sexes’?

That's a curious argument, but I don't think it's entirely original. I know I've heard it before somewhere... oh yeah, here:

`I can't believe THAT!' said Alice.

`Can't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'

Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said: `one CAN'T believe impossible things.'

`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Of course, back in the 1800s, that argument was already two hundred years old...

Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.

Is what you believe an act of will for you? Can you just calculate that you or someone you care about will benefit from you believing something and then believe it?

(In what follows I'm presuming you're probably an atheist since you hang out on TFT; if not, let me know and I'll change some trivial details.)

Consider the following argument:

What is it that would really be lost for you, even if it meant perhaps changing your mind, to accept that God exists? That's your sticking point, you closeminded fervorous person. I guess I’m asking, why do you care if some Being beyond your comprehension is God? What is so important to you (because something clearly is) about being able to scoff, “Nope. Still not a god.”? SOMETHING really sticks in your craw about Christians. As far as I can see, you’re irrationally concerned about something that doesn’t affect you, much if at all, and adamant to the point of stubbornness on the premise that there's no God. What would you be giving up to grant that, yes, there's a God?​

Did that little speech induce you to become a Christian? Does it strike you as a sane argument? Do you think it's normal to be able to accept or reject a proposition, not on the basis of evidence pertaining to its truth, but on the basis of evidence pertaining to its impact on oneself? Do you think changing your mind about what's true is the same thing as changing your mind about whether to have a second slice of pie?

If beliefs are an act of will for you, well, wow; but don't take for granted that they're also an act of will for Metaphor. Your entire line of argument presupposes psychology that isn't normal for humans.

 

[TomC]

what is it that would really be lost for you, even if it meant perhaps changing your mind, to accept that some small minority of people
a) feel an overwhelming urge to change (they might say, “correct,”) their sex
b) go to incredible (and expensive) lengths to become that other sex, and…
c) at the end of this process, they’ve successfully “become” that other sex, if not 100% biologically/genetically to your specifications, but to the point that withholding assent (that they’ve “changed sexes”) is no longer reasonable.

[MENTION=14042]LoAmmo[/MENTION];

Like most of the people you're disagreeing with here, I'll happily grant all three, under nearly all circumstances. The problem with close mindedness is from the ideological purists of the politically correct variety.

For most of human history sex and gender roles was hugely important. The survival of a primitive tribe depended on it. The modern world is extremely different. Physique is no longer important for nearly anything. A person's ability to run fast or gestate a baby don't matter, what matters is aptitude and skill set. So, now a woman can pilot a 747 across the ocean while her husband minds the children back home, no problem. Statistically, he can probably outrun her in the 50m dash, and only she can birth a baby. Through the miracle of modern technology, either could greatly alter their appearance. But they can't alter their sex.

This doesn't matter, most of the time. The Creationist level close mindedness comes in when the politically correct are so adamant that there's no difference between men and women, or trans and cis, to the extent that they can't see the harm being caused to cis-females.

You may not care about having a person of the opposite sex changing or showering with you, but lots of women do. You may not care about fairness in competitive sports, but lots of women do. The lack of concern for women's issues is appalling, IMHO.

And notice I said "Women's issues". I don't think there are comparable issues for men. Overall, in general, under normal circumstances, we dudes just don't have them. For a normal guy, a strange chick joining them in the shower at the city pool is an amusing anomaly, not a threat. Trans-boys aren't going to dominate the male division of high school track and field teams. Refusing to see the distinction, to the detriment of women, is the real blindness here.
Tom

ETA [MENTION=765]Emily Lake[/MENTION];
I tried to address your post #184~

 

[OLDMAN]

The old saying, "There are no women with dicks, just men with tits". Now this has nothing to do with a person's desire to be a female/male or their estrogen or chromosome levels.

 

[TomC]

But I think the granting of the award has a bigger problem. The recipient is an adult human male, who is not a sportswoman because he is not any kind of woman at all.

Ya know, [MENTION=103]Metaphor[/MENTION];
I see this post as another episode of you shooting your premise in the foot with a poorly chosen example.

Apparently, Hubbard was recognized for good conduct under pressure. Nothing about prowess or gender, the recognition was for reacting to defeat with grace and dignity.

It's completely irrelevant to trans issues.
Tom

 

[TomC]

What Ahab said.

Plus, I don't think I agree with what none said, although it's tempting to say humans are corrupt as a species, i.e. through and through, top to bottom.

What I really believe, and again, I am not certain, is that humankind is the pinnacle of evolutionary development on this planet.

And finally, I will not speak for Metaphor, but agree with some of his points. And I also agree with Emily Lake at least with respect to how this trans topic effects women's forward-moving progress in society.

What I may pose to you is whether people have a right to "single sex spaces" outside of "single person, private spaces", and whether "fairness in sports" is put at threat by the majority (the sane) of trans people and the majority of their advocates.

If you pay attention to the thread, it is not: I point out that if people have a "right to fairness in sports", that right is not based directly on sex in the first place but on the effects of hormone exposure.

You so resemble Professor Higgins, in "My Fair Lady".

If you did a passable Rex Harrison impersonation, "Why can't a woman be more like a man" would make a great Jarhyn theme song.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Ya know, @Metaphor;
I see this post as another episode of you shooting your premise in the foot with a poorly chosen example.

Apparently, Hubbard was recognized for good conduct under pressure.

Where did you read such a thing? There is nothing to indicate that the award is given to people for 'good conduct under pressure'. Per the OP, the student association president said:

Otago University Students' Association president Michaela Waite-Harvey said the Blues awards aim to highlight Otago students excelling in their chosen sport.

''We could think of no-one more worthy of sportswoman of the year than Laurel Hubbard who represented Otago and New Zealand incredibly well at this year's Tokyo Olympics.''

Nothing about prowess or gender, the recognition was for reacting to defeat with grace and dignity.

I think you've been reading Jarhyn's fantasies and have cryptomnesically mistaken them for facts.

It's completely irrelevant to trans issues.
Tom

It is, of course, absolutely relevant, even if any of the 'grace under pressure' claims were true, for which there is no evidence. The point is the award is called 'sportswoman' of the year. Neither Hubbard's sporting performance, nor his 'grace and dignity', can make him a woman.

 

[Metaphor]

And notice I said "Women's issues". I don't think there are comparable issues for men. Overall, in general, under normal circumstances, we dudes just don't have them. For a normal guy, a strange chick joining them in the shower at the city pool is an amusing anomaly, not a threat.

There is definitely an asymmetry, with women having more to lose, but that does not mean the psychological comfort of some men would not be compromised by having a woman in their intimate spaces.

Trans-boys aren't going to dominate the male division of high school track and field teams.

I read an article the other week about how 'strange' it was that all the focus on sports was on transwomen, and there was no negative focus on a member of the US Women's national soccer team who was 'non-binary'. Of course, in the context, non-binary meant an obvious adult human female. It was surreal to see someone almost put the pieces together then fail so badly.

 

[Jarhyn]

What Ahab said.

Plus, I don't think I agree with what none said, although it's tempting to say humans are corrupt as a species, i.e. through and through, top to bottom.

What I really believe, and again, I am not certain, is that humankind is the pinnacle of evolutionary development on this planet.

And finally, I will not speak for Metaphor, but agree with some of his points. And I also agree with Emily Lake at least with respect to how this trans topic effects women's forward-moving progress in society.

What I may pose to you is whether people have a right to "single sex spaces" outside of "single person, private spaces", and whether "fairness in sports" is put at threat by the majority (the sane) of trans people and the majority of their advocates.

If you pay attention to the thread, it is not: I point out that if people have a "right to fairness in sports", that right is not based directly on sex in the first place but on the effects of hormone exposure.

You so resemble Professor Higgins, in "My Fair Lady".

If you did a passable Rex Harrison impersonation, "Why can't a woman be more like a man" would make a great Jarhyn theme song.
Tom

Maybe you can, instead of merely making an insulting comparison to someone saying something I did not say and address the things I did:

What thing do you think gives any variety of person a right to spaces just for the people they want there outside of them making these as private spaces for themselves?

When it comes to the public's accomodations, the correct answer is (spaces for any single one), (spaces for nobody), (spaces for anyone who wishes) are acceptable. (Spaces for only some) is not 'public', at all; that is 'private'.

 

[Emily Lake]

ETA [MENTION=765]Emily Lake[/MENTION];
I tried to address your post #184~

Good response

 

[Emily Lake]

I read an article the other week about how 'strange' it was that all the focus on sports was on transwomen, and there was no negative focus on a member of the US Women's national soccer team who was 'non-binary'. Of course, in the context, non-binary meant an obvious adult human female. It was surreal to see someone almost put the pieces together then fail so badly.

I've run across that same argument, presented as if it somehow counters the argument against transwomen competing against females. To me, however, it reinforces that the segregation is on the basis of sex, not gender, and that the objection is NOT to transgender people competing. Virtually nobody has any objection to people presenting and behaving however they please, dressing as they please, having whatever interests and hobbies they please. The objection is to the replacement of *sex* with *gender*. The objection is to males competing against females, and has nothing to do with how they identify.

 

[none]

I read an article the other week about how 'strange' it was that all the focus on sports was on transwomen, and there was no negative focus on a member of the US Women's national soccer team who was 'non-binary'. Of course, in the context, non-binary meant an obvious adult human female. It was surreal to see someone almost put the pieces together then fail so badly.

I've run across that same argument, presented as if it somehow counters the argument against transwomen competing against females. To me, however, it reinforces that the segregation is on the basis of sex, not gender, and that the objection is NOT to transgender people competing. Virtually nobody has any objection to people presenting and behaving however they please, dressing as they please, having whatever interests and hobbies they please. The objection is to the replacement of *sex* with *gender*. The objection is to males competing against females, and has nothing to do with how they identify.

Just don't turn into Annie Oakley....

 

[Metaphor]

I read an article the other week about how 'strange' it was that all the focus on sports was on transwomen, and there was no negative focus on a member of the US Women's national soccer team who was 'non-binary'. Of course, in the context, non-binary meant an obvious adult human female. It was surreal to see someone almost put the pieces together then fail so badly.

I've run across that same argument, presented as if it somehow counters the argument against transwomen competing against females. To me, however, it reinforces that the segregation is on the basis of sex, not gender, and that the objection is NOT to transgender people competing. Virtually nobody has any objection to people presenting and behaving however they please, dressing as they please, having whatever interests and hobbies they please. The objection is to the replacement of *sex* with *gender*. The objection is to males competing against females, and has nothing to do with how they identify.

The gender ideologists will do more than replace sex with gender. They tell you: you are cruel and callous for daring to point out reasons sex should not be replaced by gender. Their own cruelty and callousness at destroying single-sex spaces (and erasing homosexuals at the same time) never, ever dawns on them.

 

[Emily Lake]

I read an article the other week about how 'strange' it was that all the focus on sports was on transwomen, and there was no negative focus on a member of the US Women's national soccer team who was 'non-binary'. Of course, in the context, non-binary meant an obvious adult human female. It was surreal to see someone almost put the pieces together then fail so badly.

I've run across that same argument, presented as if it somehow counters the argument against transwomen competing against females. To me, however, it reinforces that the segregation is on the basis of sex, not gender, and that the objection is NOT to transgender people competing. Virtually nobody has any objection to people presenting and behaving however they please, dressing as they please, having whatever interests and hobbies they please. The objection is to the replacement of *sex* with *gender*. The objection is to males competing against females, and has nothing to do with how they identify.

The gender ideologists will do more than replace sex with gender. They tell you: you are cruel and callous for daring to point out reasons sex should not be replaced by gender. Their own cruelty and callousness at destroying single-sex spaces (and erasing homosexuals at the same time) never, ever dawns on them.

What really gets me irritated is that the gender ideologues are doing actual harm to the progress made by transsexual people.

 

[none]

Lol times are changing... now in Denver Fox News reports a drive by at a 15 year old MAN'S birthday...
Well now what?

 

[TomC]

Maybe you can, instead of merely making an insulting comparison to someone saying something I did not say and address the things I did:

I believe I did, in post #205, which you didn't respond to.
In this post you're doing the same thing. You're ignoring the enormous differences between men and women, and complaining that everyone doesn't think and do everything your way. And going on about which rights matter and what the correct answers are. Maybe in your personal world sex and gender issues are negligible, but for the vast majority of us they're important.

What thing do you think gives any variety of person a right to spaces just for the people they want there outside of them making these as private spaces for themselves?

That's easy. Human nature.

Whether you accept this or not, hundreds or thousands of generations have left humans with a strong sexual dimorphism. And it's not just physical, it's very much behavioral as well. Men, as a group, a much more pervy and rapey than women, as a group.

For 95+% of people, a simple division by sex in facilities like restrooms and locker/shower rooms works. And there is an option available for everyone, even if it's not their preference.

When it comes to the public's accomodations, the correct answer is (spaces for any single one), (spaces for nobody), (spaces for anyone who wishes) are acceptable. (Spaces for only some) is not 'public', at all; that is 'private'.

This kind of pontificating makes it hard to take you seriously. In a 50K seat football stadium, dividing the restrooms by sex doesn't make them "private". It's just being reasonable. You cannot just redefine words to suit your personal issues and expect the rest of us to give you special rights.
Tom

 

[TomC]

The point is the award is called 'sportswoman' of the year. Neither Hubbard's sporting performance, nor his 'grace and dignity', can make him a woman

This appears to be the sticking point. You're objecting to the use of the word "sportswoman", on ideological grounds. To me, that's nothing more than politeness.

Whatever the reason the school is recognizing Hubbard, she prefers the descriptor "sportswoman". You're correct, that doesn't change her sex. But that doesn't matter, it's her gender that matters in this particular case. You're conflating two different things. Her sex matters in in the sports division she competes in. I agree the IOC shouldn't do that. But the magazine cover is about her gender, not sex. I don't have the slightest problem with that, unless there's some other aspect I don't know(or care) about.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

The point is the award is called 'sportswoman' of the year. Neither Hubbard's sporting performance, nor his 'grace and dignity', can make him a woman

This appears to be the sticking point. You're objecting to the use of the word "sportswoman", on ideological grounds. To me, that's nothing more than politeness.

Whatever the reason the school is recognizing Hubbard, she prefers the descriptor "sportswoman". You're correct, that doesn't change her sex. But that doesn't matter, it's her gender that matters in this particular case. You're conflating two different things. Her sex matters in in the sports division she competes in. I agree the IOC shouldn't do that. But the magazine cover is about her gender, not sex. I don't have the slightest problem with that, unless there's some other aspect I don't know(or care) about.
Tom

For me it's more that the award is intended to honor and recognize women in sport, to grant respect to women who have furthered their sports. By giving this award to a person who is not a woman, they are depriving women of the honor. They're taking something intended to advance the equality of women and giving it to a male.

It's the same objection I have to Torey Peters making the long list of women authors, or Eddie Izzard being recognized as the funniest female comedian, or Caitlyn Jenner being considered one of the "women of the year", or Martine Rothblatt being honored for being the highest paid female CEO.

It's taking away a slice of pie from women and giving it to men, even though the pie that women have is smaller than the one men have.

 

[TomC]

For me it's more that the award is intended to honor and recognize women in sport

If so, that wasn't mentioned. Like I pointed out, I don't claim to know all the details.
Tom