Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...

First topic message reminder :




What a complete numpty!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, of course, that depends upon how you define 'men' and 'women' - particularly when sex-change operations are readily available.  And remember, you can't use 'natural' as your ethic, without justifying it.

A woman is definitely not a man in a dress who has had his meat and two veg surgically removed!!!

It's quite simple really!!!

Why? If she's happy, what business of is it of yours or mine?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's also an offense to gays/trans not to respect their gender choice.  So, there are two victims here.  Do you have a resolution?

It's not a 'choice'...!!!

It is an offence to the overwhelming vast majority of people, as well as common sense and science and biological fact, to try to bully people into having to believe/accept the delusional beliefs of a tiny minority of people who try to tell us that they are something else other than what they quite clearly physiologically are!!!

I believe that these people are suffering from mental illness... It's not the body that is wrong... It is the mind that is confused in not being able to accept the reality of things!

What business is it of anyone else? Perhaps they should keep their opinions to themselves, unless they have a stake in something related.

Original Quill wrote:
So, you favor my proposal that an athletic league should be started that is specifically for gay and trans men?

There is already the Paralympics... Maybe they could include a category for the trans...?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

A woman is definitely not a man in a dress who has had his meat and two veg surgically removed!!!

It's quite simple really!!!

Why? If she's happy, what business of is it of yours or mine?

It is the business of everybody if they want to impose their will on to us that we have to accept/believe that they are a different sex than that which they really obviously are... And if they want to use facilities designed specifically for the sex that they biologically are not!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
So, you favor my proposal that an athletic league should be started that is specifically for gay and trans men?

There is already the Paralympics... Maybe they could include a category for the trans...?

Haha...is there an echo in here? I already suggested that if the trans don't fit the category, they could start anew.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why?  If she's happy, what business of is it of yours or mine?

It is the business of everybody if they want to impose their will on to us that we have to accept/believe that they are a different sex than that which they really obviously are... And if they want to use facilities designed specifically for the sex that they biologically are not!!!

That's Putin-talk, just like red-stripping any post you don't like.  You'll convince a lot more people by making reasonable arguments.  Temper-tantrums are childish.

Nor do you gain any ground by victim-posturing.  You make yourself a victim when you allege that "they want to impose their will on to us..."  They want no such thing.  You, the straight-WASPs, are already the majority.  They just want a fair chance in the game.

Earlier I described it as a dilemma.  I suggested answers that gave something to both sides.  You have done nothing of the sort.  You just want to drop the trans off into (what I call) The abyss of nothingness!  A dilemma is a situation in which both sides are at a loss.  It's further exacerbated when one side does not even recognize the other side's loss.

I liken these kind of situations to an infected body-part…say a hand.  Infections are not bad or malevolent, they just are.  But if left untreated they will spread and you will have to cut off the hand...eventually, if left untreated, they will kill the host.  If you have a host that says the infected area is just bad, bad, bad...but does nothing to treat it, he is essentially aiding the infection.  The loss will be his.

Do you recognize yourself in that scenario?  Do you not see that you are essentially doing nothing but shaking your finger at the infected hand, and saying bad, bad, bad...  You are doing nothing to improve the situation.  Liberals like to treat social infections...conservatives just ignore them.

Firstly, letting them compete amongst each other in some newly created category in the Paralympics is totally different from allowing men (claiming to be women) being allowed to complete against actual biological women in regular mainstream events.


Secondly... You are talking waffle trying to label any suggestions as 'putin talk'... And i haven't 'red striped' anything, nor have I had any form of 'temper tantrum'.


Thirdly, I'm not trying to put anyone into any kind of abyss, I'm just standing up for common sense and reality!


If a man wants to put on a dress and put on a bit of make up and masquerade around the place pretending to be a woman... Or a woman wants to have a short haircut and put on a pair of jeans and a hooded top and work boots and pretend to be a man... Then that is up to them... But it is not then incumbent on me or anyone else to have to go along with their pretence or deluded beliefs!!!


The tail does not wag the dog!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Firstly, letting them compete amongst each other in some newly created category in the Paralympics is totally different from allowing men (claiming to be women) being allowed to complete against actual biological women in regular mainstream events.

Why Paralympics?  They don't have any disabilities.  In fact, your complaint is that they are superior athletes to the professional women with which they presently compete!  I think it would be hilarious if some of them were sought after by professional teams.  What if the gay Olympics brought us superior sports?

Tommy Monk wrote:Secondly... You are talking waffle trying to label any suggestions as 'putin talk'... And i haven't 'red striped' anything, nor have I had any form of 'temper tantrum'.

Putin is a single-minded person, who won't compromise. He lacks the ability to see another person's viewpoint.  That's what you are doing.  That's all I'm saying.

Tommy Monk wrote:Thirdly, I'm not trying to put anyone into any kind of abyss, I'm just standing up for common sense and reality!

Ah-hah, so you must have an answer if you are not trying to leave people in an abyss.  What is it?

Tommy Monk wrote:If a man wants to put on a dress and put on a bit of make up and masquerade around the place pretending to be a woman... Or a woman wants to have a short haircut and put on a pair of jeans and a hooded top and work boots and pretend to be a man... Then that is up to them... But it is not then incumbent on me or anyone else to have to go along with their pretence or deluded beliefs!!!

It is if you impede them.

Tommy Monk wrote:The tail does not wag the dog!!!

Nor does the tongue.  It's the paws of the dog that determines where the pooch is headed.

1. They are men masquerading as women... They are not women!


2. I see the viewpoint... But I just totally disagree!


3. They put themselves in to whatever situation they are in... I don't really care if a man wants to put on a dress and pretend to be a woman... But they must accept the reality that they are still men... So could compete with other men in any competition...


4. Waffle!

Tommy Monk wrote:1. They are men masquerading as women... They are not women!

When automobiles were first introduced, around the turn of the century, you'd hear cat-calls from on-lookers: Get a horse!  Get a horse!  Why?  Just opposition to the difference.  They wanted to punish those making the transition.  Automobiles would break down; but so too would horses get injured.  Eventually, we adjusted.

Today, in the age of the automobile, we view such opposition to the transition as comical.  We make jokes about it.  We had to change cultural conventions, impose laws, alter the economy...just because the automobile became the predominate mode of transportation.  Today, we live with it quite comfortably (tho' we don't like the carbon emissions).

Now, modern technology has come up with another innovation: we can make adjustments to a person's physiology to fit his or her perception of him or herself.  We can laugh; we can oppose; we can oppose the changes in cultural conventions...but if it is important enough, we will make the leap.

Tommy Monk wrote:2. I see the viewpoint... But I just totally disagree!

That's fair enough.  Around the turn of the century, some people didn't like the automobile and the changes it caused, but eventually they lived with it.  They “saw the viewpoint...just disagreed”.  That's progress…you are showing signs of your reasonableness.

 

Tommy Monk wrote:3. They put themselves in to whatever situation they are in... I don't really care if a man wants to put on a dress and pretend to be a woman... But they must accept the reality that they are still men... So could compete with other men in any competition...

Tom, it's progress.  People made the transition into cars, too (as opposed to horses), so it’s not something to lament or regret.  “They put themselves in to whatever situation they are in…” because the technology made it possible, and now they prefer the change…just like the automobile.  There will always be those who prefer the horse, but if society accepts these changes…well, it is what it is.

Tommy Monk wrote:4. Waffle!

“Phff-puff-ff…”  Might be just a hole in the muffler.  

In the UK you can transition with the NHS, so people who believe they have the wrong body would surely want to change it into the body they think they should have yet quite a few keep their original genitalia, usually males so I've read - why? I watched a documentary about this where one person who had transitioned from male to female but still had male genitalia commented their girlfriend liked it, do things still work that well when someone is on female hormone medication?. They were now living as a female with a girlfriend so was lesbian as presumable was the girlfriend - confusing to say the least . They could be bi I suppose.

Madness!

Vintage... They are not women... They are men in drag...


It is also known that many so called trans men also still have vagina and cervix and uteruses etc... So are just women pretending to be men...


This is just insane!!!

Vintage wrote:In the UK you can transition with the NHS, so people who believe they have the wrong body would surely want to change it into the body they think they should have yet quite a few keep their original genitalia, usually males so I've read - why? I watched a documentary about this where one person who had transitioned from male to female but still had male genitalia commented their girlfriend liked it, do things still work that well when someone is on female hormone medication?. They were now living as a female with a girlfriend so was lesbian as presumable was the girlfriend - confusing to say the least . They could be bi I suppose.

Yeah...I can understand that, too. The goal is not always to be the woman (or guy), in fact, but to live the life style once society is accepting of it.

If you live the lifestyle fair enough I've know a few people who acted and dressed like the opposite sex to what they appeared to be but the lady who dressed and acted like a old fashioned country gentleman still used the ladies loo in the pub, the man who habitually wore a skirt, a wig and long boots who had to go into hospital went to a male ward, no ifs or buts.
No one I know of thought any the less of these people but they made no demands or requests
of anyone about safe female places or sports etc.
I suppose I can understand to a certain extent, in my lifetime things have changed considerably for women although they have had to fight long and hard to live a the life and do the work they wish to but still we accept in sports for instance males have the advantage in speed and strength in these kind of things women cannot compete against men and physiologically a trans woman still has those advantages, so why are we trying to ignore this.

Vintage wrote:If you live the lifestyle fair enough I've know a few people who acted and dressed like the opposite sex to what they appeared to be but the lady who dressed and acted like a old fashioned country gentleman still used the ladies loo in the pub, the man who habitually wore a skirt, a wig and long boots who had to go into hospital went to a male ward, no ifs or buts.
No one I know of thought any the less of these people but they made no demands or requests
of anyone about safe female places or sports etc.

Imagine how it was for the automobiles at the turn of the 20th-century.  The infrastructure had not begun to adjust, and so there were barns for horses but no car parks; there were blacksmiths for repairs, but no mechanic's shops.  We had yet to shift to a new lifestyle, and the new conventions that accommodated the changes.

So, you fit in according the infrastructure that is already there.  You park the car in the horse barn; you use “ladies loo in the pub”.  You buy the heaviest overcoat because the car goes faster, and creates more wind; the modern trans goes into the hospital “to a male ward” because there is no other facility to accommodate him.

But just as we made the transition in conventions from the horse to the automobile, we will make the transition to new ideas, and new infrastructures, to suit the new life.  This is the pattern of life, of society and of history.

Vintage wrote:I suppose I can understand to a certain extent, in my lifetime things have changed considerably for women although they have had to fight long and hard to live a the life and do the work they wish to but still we accept in sports for instance males have the advantage in speed and strength in these kind of things women cannot compete against men and physiologically a trans woman still has those advantages, so why are we trying to ignore this.

These are the changes, taking place.

Were not talking about cars quill.


Stop waffling!!!


It's beyond boring!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Were not talking about cars quill.

Stop waffling!!!

It's beyond boring!!!

It's an analogy. An analogy is an extrapolation to a more abstract level, so as to exhibit the consistency of the function...in this case, social change.

The crux of this analogy is the social change brought about by gender modification in comparison to transportation. It is consistent with other modifications or changes that you, yourself accept: the social change brought about by the development of the automobile. Thus, the transition in transportation represents a significant social change, as does gender modification.

If you are not talking about social change, you should be. Or, if you find gender transformation boring and of no interest, let's move on. After all, I believe you started this thread.

I know what an analogy is... But you are talking nonsense...!

Tommy Monk wrote:I know what an analogy is... But you are talking nonsense...!

Why do you say a relevant cultural comparison is "nonsense"?  Do you not recognize comparative historical inquiry as reputable?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_historical_research  Surely there are significant cultural differences between historical epochs.  Can we not isolate those changes and discuss them…even find analogies, eg?  

Or, do you believe that gender transformation is not a social permutation as significant as the horse-to-automobile transformation?  If so, why?  By simply condemning it as “nonsense” you leave the impression that you are afraid of pursuing it.  (All right, let’s discuss that: Why does gender transformation evoke such fears?)  The beauty of discussion is it clarifies and promotes understanding.

It seems to me that you suggested the topic by starting this thread...but as soon as we raise certain sub-topics you arbitrarily brand them as "nonsense".  Why are you reluctant to carry on?

The OP question is "does a woman have a penis?"...


To put this in to context with quills waffle analogy... The question would therefore be... "Does a horse have a petrol/diesel based combustion engine?"...


Or... "Does s horse have wheels instead of legs?"...


You are talking absolute shit quill!!!


Stop diverting this thread with your waffle!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

The OP question is "does a woman have a penis?"...

Of course not, but you are using genitalia symbolically.  Keep it there, rather than losing your train-of-thought.

The real question is, can a woman/man who identifies with the characteristics of the opposite sex, transform him or herself and thereby live a more fulfilling life?  The fulcrum of the analogy is the function, and that is neither a penis nor the horseshit that the horse drops. Today we have the technology that permits gender transformation, so what's wrong with it and why is it any of your business??

Tommy Monk wrote:To put this in to context with quills waffle analogy... The question would therefore be... "Does a horse have a petrol/diesel based combustion engine?"...

Or... "Does s horse have wheels instead of legs?"...

You have lost the meaning of the analogy.  We're not concerned about the horse or the wagon, although we hope they are well cared for.  The real question is, does the person transported get to his or her destination quicker, cleaner and less expensively?  Is transportation improved by going from a biological beast-of-burden to an automotive machine?  In turn, with improved schedules, and less time devoted to travel, can more be done?  Can people spend more time with business, or with loved ones, whatever the purpose?

The issue is speed and efficiency of transportation, not spokes on wheels.  We are comparing improvements to lifestyle, to improvements to transportation…not vaginas to saddles.  The male sexual member is merely used (by you, I might add) as a metonymy for an overall lifestyle. All right, if you choose to use such expressions, use them consistently.  The analogy allows us to understand the value of a cultural change, once the choice is offered by technology.

Did you wander into the realm of metaphor/metonymy and not realize it?  I think you did.  You no more understand metaphorical symbolism, than you understand an analogy.  The OP is a classic case of not sorting your terms.

And more waffle is the reply from quill...

I think that it’s become rather fashionable to be “different” but it’s a yawnfest because...

It’s always been the same...everyone is unique. Let’s just not shout about it!!!

I really don’t understand the haters or the celebrators to be honest.

People are people. We are all different. Nothing to see

I have a simple question -- why must this be a "simple question"?

Why is it not allowed to be a complicated question, particularly in light of the fact that there are people who are born into what they feel is not the right body for them?

And if I might be so bold as to ask another question -- why is it such an emotional topic for some?

Round and round we go...round and round...

Everyone is different. Everyone has their own views.
In twenty years this won’t even matter.

Next topic.

Ben Reilly wrote:I have a simple question -- why must this be a "simple question"?

Why is it not allowed to be a complicated question, particularly in light of the fact that there are people who are born into what they feel is not the right body for them?

And if I might be so bold as to ask another question -- why is it such an emotional topic for some?

I'm no psychologist, but I think you have answered your own question with your second question.  It is not a "simple question"...a sex change goes to the psychology, and a deep-seated insecurity – particularly in straight men - about sexual identifies.  (I have long had a feeling that racism, too, is underlain by sexual insecurities.  Why else did Dylan Roof bring up sexual feelings, for example, and complain that "they are raping our women" when shooting nine parishioners in Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, Charleston?)

But tommy and I are not really talking about underlying psychology, nor even the details of sexual transformation.  We are only sorting out a metaphoric expression via symbolic logic.  A metaphor only works when the contours are matched, and the parts are then sorted.  In order to do that you must understand the thrust of the comparison, before taking up the entailments.  See, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (1980).

In the OP, the questioner is confusing an entailment (penis) with the whole thrust of the metaphor (sexual identity), and coming up with absurd logical juxtapositions.  He’s having fun with it.  He is playing with a metonymy (a component of the whole), and rather than dealing with the thrust of the overall comparison, seizing on a single entailment and making jokes.  I suspect the author of the OP is doing it deliberately; Tommy, though tickled, doesn’t understand how a metaphor works.

Tommy and I haven’t begun to discuss the psychology.  We have been sorting out the logic of the metaphor.

eddie wrote:I think that it’s become rather fashionable to be “different” but it’s a yawnfest because...

It’s always been the same...everyone is unique. Let’s just not shout about it!!!

I really don’t understand the haters or the celebrators to be honest.

People are people. We are all different. Nothing to see

Eddie, I agree 100% with your first three lines.....people are people, live and let live, be who you want to be....just shut up about it, we all should be able to live the life we choose to live as long as we are not hurting others.

But....when it comes down to it, there are complications, it can't just be shrugged off with 'Nothing to see'..

The most topical one at the moment is, should a woman who was born a man be allowed to compete against women in sport....and to me, the answer is clearly NO.
When it comes to men being allowed in a womans prisons, hospitals, changing rooms, toilets  etc, that's a far broader subject.
Have they transitioned, or do they just feel like dressing and acting like a woman...but intend to  keep all the tackle and privilege of being male?

We can't have it all...there are  concessions we all have to make as we go through life ...being born male, and having the physical strength of a male, whether they still have a penis or not, must be taken into consideration sometimes, else the majority will suffer for the sake of the minority.

Syl wrote:We can't have it all...there are concessions we all have to make as we go through life ...being born male, and having the physical strength of a male, whether they still have a penis or not, must be taken into consideration sometimes, else the majority will suffer for the sake of the minority.

How about being born a west African, and having that beautiful Mandinka physique? Should they be excluded from competition, as having an unfair advantage, as well?

Only if you think they should have their own swimming, snooker and chess competitions too...

Tommy Monk wrote:Only if you think they should have their own swimming, snooker and chess competitions too...

Are they superior in strength? That is apparently the test for exclusion from competition, and the reason why "the majority will suffer for the sake of the minority."

But alas, don't we want the winner to be superior, and thus the "ultimate" minority? Isn't that the final definition of the "winner"?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:We can't have it all...there are  concessions we all have to make as we go through life ...being born male, and having the physical strength of a male, whether they still have a penis or not, must be taken into consideration sometimes, else the majority will suffer for the sake of the minority.

How about being born a west African, and having that beautiful Mandinka physique?  Should they be excluded from competition, as having an unfair advantage, as well?

No one should be excluded from competition as long as they are competing fairly.

Swimmer Lia Thomas was born male.
Competing against males he was ranked 554 in the 200 freestle event.
After transitioning, two years later, competing against females, she came fifth  in the 200 freestyle event and first in the 500.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Only if you think they should have their own swimming, snooker and chess competitions too...

Are they superior in strength? That is apparently the test for exclusion from competition, and the reason why "the majority will suffer for the sake of the minority."

But alas, don't we want the winner to be superior, and thus the "ultimate" minority? Isn't that the final definition of the "winner"?

We are talking about men claiming to be women and then being able to compete against actual biological women.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

How about being born a west African, and having that beautiful Mandinka physique?  Should they be excluded from competition, as having an unfair advantage, as well?

No one should be excluded from competition as long as they are competing fairly.

'Fairly'?? Yet, you define having superior physical strength as being unfair. How do you define a winner, if superior physical strength is a disqualification? Any winner, being ipso factor of superior strength, would be kicked out of the competition.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are they superior in strength?  That is apparently the test for exclusion from competition, and the reason why "the majority will suffer for the sake of the minority."

But alas, don't we want the winner to be superior, and thus the "ultimate" minority?  Isn't that the final definition of the "winner"?  

We are talking about men claiming to be women and then being able to compete against actual biological women.

More than that: we are taking about individuals, identifying themselves to be women, being able to compete in their defined class.

No... Men claiming they are women...

Tommy Monk wrote:No... Men claiming they are women...

I think that is an ambiguous interpretation of what is going on.  No one is claiming that the trans weren't born with the wrong genitalia, just that their bodies don't match their self-identity.

Now, either their bodies or their self-identity is wrong.  Since it is self-identity, and therefore self-derived, it is for no one else but them to make the identity.

You are outside the loop, tom, and have no vote in the matter.  You can observe, but you point to the wrong thing.  You observe physiology, when we have already left that element behind.  We have said it is self-identity.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

No one should be excluded from competition as long as they are competing fairly.

'Fairly'??  Yet, you define having superior physical strength as being unfair.  How do you define a winner, if superior physical strength is a disqualification?  Any winner, being ipso factor of superior strength, would be kicked out of the competition.

Would you have disabled athletes  competing against able bodied athletes too?

Do you think it a fair contest that a male cyclist who was ranked 554th when he competed againt males, after undergoing a sex change, managed to come 1st against all female competitors 2 years later?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

'Fairly'??  Yet, you define having superior physical strength as being unfair.  How do you define a winner, if superior physical strength is a disqualification?  Any winner, being ipso factor of superior strength, would be kicked out of the competition.

Would you have disabled athletes  competing against able bodied athletes too?

Good question.  Would you have athletes segregated according to body strength?

Syl wrote:Do you think it a  fair contest  that a male cyclist who was ranked 554th when he competed againt males, after undergoing a sex change, managed to come 1st against all female competitors 2 years later?

Perhaps they segregate contestants like they do in boxing: lightweight, middleweight and heavyweight? Or, some such arrangement?

I have a simple question that I bet will prove a real stumper for some people: Why are social conservatives so deeply bothered by the fact that, on rare occassions, some people feel they're in the wrong body?

I'm not trying to say it's not an interesting topic that deserves discussion, I just want to know why social conservatives get so emotional about this topic.

Ben Reilly wrote:I have a simple question that I bet will prove a real stumper for some people: Why are social conservatives so deeply bothered by the fact that, on rare occassions, some people feel they're in the wrong body?

I'm not trying to say it's not an interesting topic that deserves discussion, I just want to know why social conservatives get so emotional about this topic.

I believe that the threat to social status is a primary reason for social conservatives to oppose certain recognitions, including gay feelings in general, and the deeper need for a sex change specifically.  They have a vested stake in the “established” way that things are arranged, and they adopt a “do-gooder derogation” motive as a consequence.  In unique areas, like racism, I believe that threats to sexuality may add fuel to the motivation.

But in most cases, “do-gooder derogation” forms as a habit, and goes on to oppose other social changes, simply as a matter of habit.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Would you have disabled athletes  competing against able bodied athletes too?

Good question.  Would you have athletes segregated according to body strength?

Syl wrote:Do you think it a  fair contest  that a male cyclist who was ranked 554th when he competed againt males, after undergoing a sex change, managed to come 1st against all female competitors 2 years later?

Perhaps they segregate contestants like they do in boxing: lightweight, middleweight and heavyweight?  Or, some such arrangement?

So would you have a female boxing a male as long as they were in the same weight group?
A disabled athlete competing against an able bodied one?

Can you not see how daft your argument is Quill?

Ben Reilly wrote:I have a simple question that I bet will prove a real stumper for some people: Why are social conservatives so deeply bothered by the fact that, on rare occassions, some people feel they're in the wrong body?

I'm not trying to say it's not an interesting topic that deserves discussion, I just want to know why social conservatives get so emotional about this topic.

Someone can 'feel' like they're in the wrong body as much as they like... But everyone else can think the problem is to do with their mental health instead... And also that no matter how much they try to alter their physical appearance, they are stil biologically and physically the sex that they actually are, not the sex they 'feel' they want to be!!!



And to the two numptys who voted 'yes' to the op poll question... Please explain in what context a woman can have a penis!!!???

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Good question.  Would you have athletes segregated according to body strength?



Perhaps they segregate contestants like they do in boxing: lightweight, middleweight and heavyweight?  Or, some such arrangement?

So would you have a female boxing a male as long as they were in the same weight group?
A disabled athlete competing against an able bodied one?

Can you not see how daft your argument is Quill?

I take it that you don't like weight as a measure of physical superiority. What is it, then, that you think gives the male the advantage? Certainly not his charm and personality?

If one can isolate the male advantage, one can build classes that separate equally.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I have a simple question that I bet will prove a real stumper for some people: Why are social conservatives so deeply bothered by the fact that, on rare occassions, some people feel they're in the wrong body?

I'm not trying to say it's not an interesting topic that deserves discussion, I just want to know why social conservatives get so emotional about this topic.

Someone can 'feel' like they're in the wrong body as much as they like... But everyone else can think the problem is to do with their mental health instead... And also that no matter how much they try to later their physical appearance, they are stil biologically and physically the sex that they actually are, not the sex they 'feel' they want to be!!!

If nature, without purpose, created that person, what is wrong with the person making a purposeful decision to change him or herself?  Like, if a person was born with dark hair, what is your objection if s/he becomes a blond? If nature has no purpose, and the subject does have a purpose, why not go with the non-random and leave nature out of it?

More importantly, for Ben's question, what motivates your decision?  If nature doesn't care, and there is no god to care, why do you care?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

So would you have a female boxing a male as long as they were in the same weight group?
A disabled athlete competing against an able bodied one?

Can you not see how daft your argument is Quill?

I take it that you don't like weight as a measure of physical superiority.  What is it, then, that you think gives the male the advantage?  Certainly not his charm and personality?

If one can isolate the male advantage, one can build classes that separate equally.

It's not charm or personality that gives a man the physical advantage in sport, scientifically....

"Men are, in general, more muscular than women. Women are just over half as strong as men in their upper bodies, and about two-thirds as strong in their lower bodies.

You cant argue with nature Quill.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I take it that you don't like weight as a measure of physical superiority.  What is it, then, that you think gives the male the advantage?  Certainly not his charm and personality?

If one can isolate the male advantage, one can build classes that separate equally.

It's not charm or personality that gives a man the physical advantage in sport, scientifically....

"Men are, in general, more muscular than women. Women are just over half as strong as men in their upper bodies, and about two-thirds as strong in their lower bodies.

You cant argue with nature Quill.

I agree with your quote about gender differences and strength. As I said to tommy, instead of leaving the trans out in the cold, we could do a study in which we find out which physical skills males have it over females, and which females might have it over men. Then we could develop competition classes that equalize or make more competitive the male/female match-up.

Otherwise, we segregate them.

We have segregated contact sports, we all know why that is. The English Rugby Union is allowing trans women to play in women's rugby but they have to be assessed on weight and height and be on hormone treatment for a year. Some Equal Rights Campaigner has said this is discriminatory. Can you imagine the result of some larger and taller transwomen who still have the general physique of a male even with hormone treatments, the physiological advantages are there and cannot be changed dramatically if they have reached puberty.
Once science has comese up with a real way to wipe out those differences anf advantages in the physiology - both ways I might be convinced. All we will get is women being put off sport for fear of radical injury or because the trans women have the male physiological advantages and biological women will be left out of teams on performance they can never physically achieve. Its been a long hard road for women in sports, still is in some countries we shouldn't be looking to hamstring this achievement. I don't know for sure but would someone struggling to be accepted as a woman be happy to pull the rug out from under biological women, there should be a place for them of course but who pays the price.
If this was predominately a transman issue taking over biological men's spaces I expect there would a great deal more opposition.

Vintage wrote:Once science has comese up with a real way to wipe out those differences anf advantages in the physiology - both ways I might be convinced. All we will get is women being put off sport for fear of radical injury or because the trans women have the male physiological advantages and biological women will be left out of teams on performance they can never physically achieve.

Is it better that the trans are “put off sport”?

Vintage wrote:Its been a long hard road for women in sports, still is in some countries we shouldn't be looking to hamstring this achievement. I don't know for sure but would someone struggling to be accepted as a woman be happy to pull the rug out from under biological women, there should be a place for them of course but who pays the price.
If this was predominately a transman issue taking over biological men's spaces I expect there would a great deal more opposition.

Looks like you are saying ‘it’s them or us’!  And while that's a competitive attitude, it's not an attitude searching for ultimate answers.

This is what I mean by, 'dropping an issue (or a person) into the abyss of nothingness'.  I could see you trying to find answers (as I've tried to do) for both sides, but social conservatives always stop at where its a win for them.  This is the difference between Conservative/Republicans and Liberal/Democrats...where the former quit, the latter try to find answers suitable for everyone.

I guess that is about perception of the game for the Conservative/Republicans: the game is over when you have scored for your side.  For Liberal/Democrats, the game is only over when you have found solutions for all.

Could be, that's the answer to your question, Ben.  Conservative/Republicans don't want to spend the energy to win for all.  They play the game only so far as where they will win.  There's something about the endgame that is different for social conservatives.

It is them or us, as the equality people have said any attempt to check weight and height is discriminatory, when people say any transwoman of whatever physique should just be allowed to play contact sports with the physiological different biological female is blind to the consequenses or just doesn't give a damn about other people's rights and well being, so yes 'them and us'.