Kittens Are Jerks Posted April 4 #26 Share Posted April 4 On 4/3/2024 at 1:14 AM, qxcontinuum said: If a trans men wants to be she , fine with me or viceversa. Zeirs, zem, it, zit or **** is a no for me. This is all a fantasy . If the day this ridiculous law gets extended to Canada , I'll be known as: periferigerilaryminiginilenigranymanyfannymanowomenawr Whomever does not address me as such goes to jail. Nice to meet you periferigerilaryminiginilenigranymanyfannymanowomenawr. Allow me to introduce you to Canada's Bill C-36. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained And to everything else Canada is doing both nationally and globally to promote and protect LGBTQ2I rights. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-droits_homme/rights_lgbti-droits_lgbti.aspx?lang=eng 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pellinore Posted April 4 Author #27 Share Posted April 4 (edited) @psyche101 I'm still unconvinced after reading the article: Researchers at Monash University recently surveyed athletes from six sports (including Aussie rules football and cricket) at 12 randomly selected community sports clubs. The study found less than a quarter of women (24 per cent) believed “trans women have an unfair advantage when they play on a female sport team” whereas nearly half of men (46 per cent) believed this to be the case. I can well believe more men have an opinion. They always have (studies of boardroom meetings show men tend to dominate, even when their views are less pertinent). But I think saying "less than a quarter" is deliberately downplaying a very significant minority. If it was worded "nearly a quarter", it would be more neutral. A quarter is a significant percentage. (Imagine a quarter of the Oz population expressing a view that your troops should be deployed to Ukraine- it would be seismic). I would expect a figure something like 5% could be dismissed as not particularly significant, but not 24%. This research found only a minority of women (39 per cent) believed trans women have an unfair advantage, however, just 9 per cent expressed “strong” agreement with this statement. In contrast, a majority of men (65 per cent) believed trans woman have an unfair advantage, and more than a quarter (27 per cent) strongly agreed with this statement. Only 39% is described as "only" a minority? We elect governments on that percentage. The UK did Brexit on less than that percentage. Furthermore, rugby’s claims of “robust” evidence that trans women pose a safety risk have been rejected by the world’s largest rugby governing bodies, the governing bodies of similar sports and by the International Olympic Committee. For example, the AFL examined data it has collected over many years and concluded it is a “myth” that trans women pose a safety risk to others. It may be factually true that physical safety is overstated, but perception is important. If players feel intimidated being tackled by someone bigger, heavier and stronger by a margin of 30%, that is a legitimate feeling and effects gameplay. Although most women support the inclusion of trans women and girls, it is important to respect the legitimate (as opposed to ideological) questions of the minority of women about potential disadvantages and safety risks. There is little value in rejecting their concerns and labelling them as transphobic. Education would be better. The last sentence is very condescending. I use it to anger Brexiters: 'I don't blame them; they are just uneducated'. This research supports trans athletes but puts a pretty poor case for them in my opinion. A few governing sports bodies in the UK advocate a separate trans category : UK Athletics bans transgender athletes from female competition | The Independent Edited April 4 by pellinore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted April 4 #28 Share Posted April 4 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotoutthere Posted April 5 #29 Share Posted April 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, OverSword said: Was just about to post that first video myself, sums it all up rather nicely, and makes some obvious points about this legislation that some people on this topic are deliberately ignoring, but they're obviously big goverment authoritarians so are OK with it. Edited April 5 by itsnotoutthere 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted April 5 #30 Share Posted April 5 3 hours ago, pellinore said: @psyche101 I'm still unconvinced after reading the article: Researchers at Monash University recently surveyed athletes from six sports (including Aussie rules football and cricket) at 12 randomly selected community sports clubs. The study found less than a quarter of women (24 per cent) believed “trans women have an unfair advantage when they play on a female sport team” whereas nearly half of men (46 per cent) believed this to be the case. I can well believe more men have an opinion. They always have (studies of boardroom meetings show men tend to dominate, even when their views are less pertinent). But I think saying "less than a quarter" is deliberately downplaying a very significant minority. If it was worded "nearly a quarter", it would be more neutral. A quarter is a significant percentage. (Imagine a quarter of the Oz population expressing a view that your troops should be deployed to Ukraine- it would be seismic). I would expect a figure something like 5% could be dismissed as not particularly significant, but not 24%. I can't agree. You're just rewording what is already stated. If Republicans say Trump has over 75% of the vote it's a landslide win. What remains the same is the majority of female athletes support transgender athletes. That doesn't change regardless of wording. It's fact. 3 hours ago, pellinore said: This research found only a minority of women (39 per cent) believed trans women have an unfair advantage, however, just 9 per cent expressed “strong” agreement with this statement. In contrast, a majority of men (65 per cent) believed trans woman have an unfair advantage, and more than a quarter (27 per cent) strongly agreed with this statement. Only 39% is described as "only" a minority? We elect governments on that percentage. The UK did Brexit on less than that percentage. 39% expressed some belief. 9% are as avid as Rowling. Now switch those numbers around to their opposites and if that was fact we wouldn't even be having this discussion would we? Again, the majority lies with uninvolved people. Those who want to attacked the gender, and I just don't believe give a dam about the athletes. Pick a female sports and they couldn't make a single player. So why is their opinion the one that matters? 3 hours ago, pellinore said: Furthermore, rugby’s claims of “robust” evidence that trans women pose a safety risk have been rejected by the world’s largest rugby governing bodies, the governing bodies of similar sports and by the International Olympic Committee. For example, the AFL examined data it has collected over many years and concluded it is a “myth” that trans women pose a safety risk to others. It may be factually true that physical safety is overstated, but perception is important. If players feel intimidated being tackled by someone bigger, heavier and stronger by a margin of 30%, that is a legitimate feeling and effects gameplay. Mostly for people who don't even watch those sports. If intimidation was a deep concern for the majority the study would reflect that. But it doesn't. 3 hours ago, pellinore said: Although most women support the inclusion of trans women and girls, it is important to respect the legitimate (as opposed to ideological) questions of the minority of women about potential disadvantages and safety risks. There is little value in rejecting their concerns and labelling them as transphobic. Education would be better. The last sentence is very condescending. I use it to anger Brexiters: 'I don't blame them; they are just uneducated'. When a main argument (Lia Thomas) is used with misinformation to reach a desired conclusion, what else would one honestly describe that as? All I see is misinformation from people who don't watch the sports. And while most female athletes support transgender athletes, those athletes are whom I consider the most knowledgeable on the subject. People are screaming about pandering to a minority, when in fact, they are the actual minority regarding the sport. 3 hours ago, pellinore said: This research supports trans athletes but puts a pretty poor case for them in my opinion. It's not about supporting them It illustrates the best divide between public opinion and actual athlete's opinions. And I feel that's significant. 3 hours ago, pellinore said: A few governing sports bodies in the UK advocate a separate trans category : UK Athletics bans transgender athletes from female competition | The Independent With caveats who have been through male puberty from female world ranking competitions from March 31. This is what I was saying earlier. Whilst conservatives feel Arnold Schwarzenegger can put on a wig and compete in female sports, that just doesn't reflect reality. That law had been in place for fifteen years. UK equality and human rights disagreed with the sporting bodies interpretation. That may not be the end of it. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/statement-uk-athletics-position-trans-peoples-participation-athletics 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted April 5 #31 Share Posted April 5 15 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said: Nice to meet you periferigerilaryminiginilenigranymanyfannymanowomenawr. Allow me to introduce you to Canada's Bill C-36. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained And to everything else Canada is doing both nationally and globally to promote and protect LGBTQ2I rights. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-droits_homme/rights_lgbti-droits_lgbti.aspx?lang=eng I guess if you called me periferigerilaryminiginilenigranymanyfannymanowomenawr I'll have to be nice and call you whatever you want to be called... okay I cannot break this kindness... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pellinore Posted April 5 Author #32 Share Posted April 5 6 hours ago, psyche101 said: I can't agree. You're just rewording what is already stated. If Republicans say Trump has over 75% of the vote it's a landslide win. What remains the same is the majority of female athletes support transgender athletes. That doesn't change regardless of wording. It's fact. The survey is among the athletes themselves. 46% of males believe they would have an unfair advantage if they competed in women's sports. They are probably in a good position to judge. The women are more generous- only 24% of them believe men would have an advantage. But as I say, that is still a sizeable amount. If the result of the survey said only about 2% had concerns, I would be more impressed, but even then, not convinced. What is the point of a competitive sport if a proportion of the contestants have an unfair advantage? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pellinore Posted April 5 Author #33 Share Posted April 5 (edited) Contrary to organizational claims “there are only a few transgender athletes” participating in girls’ and women’s sport, the subjects in this report describe a “multiplier effect” in which “hundreds of males taking part in women’s sport, are actually affecting tens of thousands of women and girls.” These voices explain that its not just about losing out on winning, records, rankings, or opportunities to participate, it’s about not being considered nor asked and even being coerced into accepting a mixed-sex environment. They speak about a climate of intimidation, fear, silencing, loss of privacy and dignity, and fear for their physical safety. Listen To The Voices Of Female Athletes (forbes.com) I've read other accounts where female athletes fear being cancelled or labeled TERFs if they complain. It doesn't matter to me personally if every female physical/contact sports record is held by a biological male in the future. It is only sport, and other aspects of life are more pressing concerns (Ukraine and Gaza for example). It just seems sad that it is another area of life that men try to push into and dominate. Edited April 5 by pellinore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted April 5 #34 Share Posted April 5 Scottish police announced they will not arrest Rowling as she had not violated the new hate law. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/02/jk-rowling-will-not-be-arrested-under-new-scottish-hate-law-say-police 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted April 5 #35 Share Posted April 5 On 4/2/2024 at 4:17 AM, psyche101 said: Wow she is an angry person. Quite a few female murders, so by the same token I'd assume her waves of vitriol painting an entire group by the bad people in that group means she's a potential murderer. She illustrated some bad people. Sure, horrible people, they have and deserve no defence. She should probably go after the largest group of child sex offenders if that was her primary concern though. Although parents often fear that strangers will abuse their children, it has been well-documented that most child sex offenders are known to their victims. She's not vocal on that aspect. Not seeing tweets that biological males who identify ad male are the greatest threat. She identifies as Christian too but I don't remember a barrage of Cardinal Pell tweets. Poking the bear like this will bite her on the bum eventually. No, it won't. Unlike some men, the lady has a pair. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted April 5 #36 Share Posted April 5 4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said: No, it won't. Unlike some men, the lady has a pair. I’m sure Rowling who uses the male pseudonym Robert Galbraith, would love to have a ‘pair’. She claims, by the way, that the name ‘Robert’ is from her personal hero Robert F. Kennedy, and ‘Galbraith’, from Ella Galbraith, a name she invented for herself in childhood. Is it just coincidence then that Robert Galbraith Heath was a psychiatrist who claimed to have cured homosexuality with invasive electroshock? Could he perhaps be her true hero? Of course, it’s just wild speculation on my part, not that I would be at all surprised if he was. A victim of abuse herself, the damaged faux-progressive has no qualms victimizing others under the delusional belief she is protecting the rights and well-being of others. Indeed, she would like nothing more than to convince everyone that trans women are predators and rapists in dresses. As for having a 'pair' the so-called icon for inclusivity talks in codes and dog whistles, never quite having the courage to let the world see her for what she truly is — a bigot and a coward. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted April 5 #37 Share Posted April 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said: I’m sure Rowling who uses the male pseudonym Robert Galbraith, would love to have a ‘pair’. She claims, by the way, that the name ‘Robert’ is from her personal hero Robert F. Kennedy, and ‘Galbraith’, from Ella Galbraith, a name she invented for herself in childhood. Is it just coincidence then that Robert Galbraith Heath was a psychiatrist who claimed to have cured homosexuality with invasive electroshock? Could he perhaps be her true hero? Of course, it’s just wild speculation on my part, not that I would be at all surprised if he was. A victim of abuse herself, the damaged faux-progressive has no qualms victimizing others under the delusional belief she is protecting the rights and well-being of others. Indeed, she would like nothing more than to convince everyone that trans women are predators and rapists in dresses. As for having a 'pair' the so-called icon for inclusivity talks in codes and dog whistles, never quite having the courage to let the world see her for what she truly is — a bigot and a coward. I totally disagree with you as I do the cargo cult science doggerel you seem so enamored of. If you're born with a male body, you're male. If you're born with a female body, you're female. If you have a problem with that, the problem isn't your body, it's between your ears. That being said, everyone has the right to live their lives as they see fit, indulge in any fantasy they desire and be left in peace. However, they do not have the right to compel others to participate actively or passively in their lives and fantasy, if in the honest opinion of other people, they are delusional. This isn't hate-speech, this is speech you hate. Edited April 5 by Hammerclaw 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted April 5 #38 Share Posted April 5 The OP link of course uses the same illogical argument that is so loved by certain media outlets: oh, look at this one person I found who has trait X that did something bad, thus everyone with trait X should be more scrutinized/feared. I think even Rowling might understand what was wrong about this if she was treated like she's Myra Hindley , since, ya know, they must be similar since they're both British women. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted April 5 #39 Share Posted April 5 3 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said: The OP link of course uses the same illogical argument that is so loved by certain media outlets: oh, look at this one person I found who has trait X that did something bad, thus everyone with trait X should be more scrutinized/feared. I think even Rowling might understand what was wrong about this if she was treated like she's Myra Hindley , since, ya know, they must be similar since they're both British women. Actually, she doesn't believe a man should be in women's lavatories, locker rooms or on women's sport teams. If I didn't know better, I would think she was championing the rights of biological women! How quaint! 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted April 5 #40 Share Posted April 5 4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said: Actually, she doesn't believe a man should be in women's lavatories, locker rooms or on women's sport teams. I wasn't referring to what she merely believes, she's a dumbass who cares, I was referring to her posts in the OP link which I assume were the 'basis' for her beliefs. 5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said: If I didn't know better, I would think she was championing the rights of biological women! How quaint! Now we just need to show that 'the rights of biological women' are in conflict with the rights of trans people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted April 5 #41 Share Posted April 5 1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said: I wasn't referring to what she merely believes, she's a dumbass who cares, I was referring to her posts in the OP link which I assume were the 'basis' for her beliefs. Now we just need to show that 'the rights of biological women' are in conflict with the rights of trans people. Maybe you do. My mind Is already concluded on that topic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted April 5 #42 Share Posted April 5 1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said: Maybe you do. My mind Is already concluded on that topic. That's fine. Conclusions and opinions aren't really that interesting on their own, it's how one got there that can be interesting. Rowling's is dumb, "look, I found examples of trans criminals, this refutes...", actually, nothing anybody has ever said. I feel pretty confident saying that most criminal assaults of 'biological women' in lavatories and locker rooms are by fellow 'biological women', but yea, makes total sense to shine a massively disproportionate spotlight on trans people when they do it. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenMindedSceptic Posted April 5 #43 Share Posted April 5 I just love that the most reported person under this hatred filled law is Humza himself. His vile abuse in his speech about Scotland being too white was despicable. How has he not been arrested yet? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pellinore Posted April 5 Author #44 Share Posted April 5 (edited) On 4/4/2024 at 9:26 AM, Kittens Are Jerks said: Imagine throwing a hateful hissy fit because Scottish hate laws have been expanded to protect transgender individuals. https://www.equality-network.org/our-work/policy-team/hate-crime-in-scotland/ It's no surprise that Rowling neglects to mention that transgender individuals are several times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including sexual assault and rape. It better suits her agenda to instead demonize them as abusers, rather than more accurately portraying them as victims and survivors of abuse. I read an article recently that suggested her experience with domestic abuse and subsequent desire to protect women might be what's driving her over the top hostility. Whatever the reason, she's totally off the rails — a transphobe on steroids. What a hill to die on. I support what you are saying. My main concern is in sports and the way patriarchy has subjugated females in this. Parkrun in the UK is an example: It will no longer publish data including most first finishes, sub-17 minute men and sub-20 minute women, and age grade or category records. Parkrun says it is working to "find ways to remove barriers to registration and participation". It comes amid criticism it has faced for allowing transgender women to participate in the female category. In December, think tank Policy Exchange said its analysis found that at least three Parkrun female records are held by transgender women. Parkrun removes data including speed records in order to be less 'off-putting' - BBC Sport Parkrun was an inclusive and fun way to get all ages and both sexes to enjoy running (pretty long distances, and most of us oldies were walking rather than running tbh). All voluntary, free, and to incentivise participants times and records were included. Participants filled in their own details with regard to gender, age, fitness, etc. About 3 years ago, women's records started being smashed, and some women complained that the new record holders were unusually large, well-muscled runners, had facial stubble, and lacked normal female characteristics such as breasts. Now, I'm not someone who questions self-identity. If a 6-foot-tall person with a beard, weighing 15 stone of pure muscle identifies as a female I'm not going to argue with him. And the Parkrun organizers agreed, and now publish no records of achievement. It seems to me men have won. They have taken over female sports and will be the future record holders. Patriarchy still reigns. Edited April 5 by pellinore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted April 6 #45 Share Posted April 6 4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said: I totally disagree with you as I do the cargo cult science doggerel you seem so enamored of. If you're born with a male body, you're male. If you're born with a female body, you're female. If you have a problem with that, the problem isn't your body, it's between your ears. Biological science is pretty clear that human gender development is not binary and immutable. Indeed, biological sex is far more complicated than XX or XY (or XXY or just X). In fact, chromosomes do not always hold the key to biological sex. The truth is, biological sex isn’t carved in stone. It is a living system with the potential for change. Really truly. Just ask any geneticist, neurobiologist, endocrinologist or other expert in this area as their education has gone well beyond oversimplified grade school biology lessons. 5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said: This isn't hate-speech, this is speech you hate. It is indeed hate speech. These supposedly 'intellectual' assertions made by non-scientists to claim a (false) scientific basis for the dehumanizaton of trans people have real world consequences. But what do you care, right? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted April 6 #46 Share Posted April 6 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said: Really truly. Just ask any geneticist, neurobiologist, endocrinologist or other expert in this area as their education has gone well beyond oversimplified grade school biology lessons. prove it!! what geneticist, neurobiologist, endocrinologist or other expert in this area have said this? Edited April 6 by Dejarma 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted April 6 #47 Share Posted April 6 On 4/1/2024 at 1:46 PM, pellinore said: JK Rowling has unleashed her fury at Scotland's new hate crime law which could see people arrested for using a transgender person's wrong pronouns. Same kinda ruling Canada's going for, which of course is what Jordan Peterson is against. No one has the right to 'not' be offended! If you deliberately offend someone that's one thing.. But the threat of being arrested for 'accidentally' offending someone is pure fekin madness IMO. Anyways, how do the authorities think they're going to enforce something like this:::: 'he called me a he when I'm a she'!?! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted April 6 #48 Share Posted April 6 3 hours ago, pellinore said: I support what you are saying. My main concern is in sports and the way patriarchy has subjugated females in this. As a woman, I'd like to know how the patriarchy has subjugated me in this. I'm all for inclusivity, by the way, and have no issue competing against trans women.Trans athletes vary in athletic ability just like cisgender athletes. I weigh all of nothing and have been bashed about by 200 lb women. Should I have asked that they be removed from the team? Indeed, perhaps I should have also insisted that all women have their blood tested and those with higher than normal testosterone levels be excluded. And while I was at it, asking that all lesbians be prohibited from sharing the same change room would have been a good idea as a predator might have been among them. It gets really silly after a while, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted April 6 #49 Share Posted April 6 29 minutes ago, Dejarma said: prove it!! what geneticist, neurobiologist, endocrinologist or other expert in this area have said this? The burden of proof is on those making the claim that sex is binary and apparent at birth, not me. It is the argument they almost always present to defend the likes of people like Rowling (and themselves, for that matter). Why are you asking for proof anyway? You've already shown which side of the fence you're on. If, however, I'm, mistaken and you are genuinely interested in learning something, perhaps the following short documentary might be a good place for you to start. If you want additional information following that, I will be happy to provide it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted April 6 #50 Share Posted April 6 10 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said: The burden of proof is on those making the claim that sex is binary and apparent at birth, not me. It is the argument they almost always present to defend the likes of people like Rowling (and themselves, for that matter). Why are you asking for proof anyway? You've already shown which side of the fence you're on. If, however, I'm, mistaken and you are genuinely interested in learning something, perhaps the following short documentary might be a good place for you to start. If you want additional information following that, I will be happy to provide it. with the deepest respect you made a claim in a public forum & did not answer the question I asked. You claimed (your words not mine) that there are geneticist, neurobiologist, endocrinologist or other expert in this area that go against what I've suggested IN PUBLIC! Who are they? Where did you read this? Or are you suggesting you are privy to data I'm not? Because I can tell you now it's BS!!! Again, with the deepest respect 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now