Maybe we have different opinions here; I don't think it has to be "an insane advantage" to be unacceptable and (frankly) misogynistic "collateral damage"... Any statistical advantage should rule out professional competition. Steroids and other performance enhancing drugs don't necessarily confer an "insane" advantage and "winning literally everything", but they're not considered to be acceptable in professional sports for a reason; the advantages that they do give result in unfair victories, and not harmless victories, others who had no such advantage are pushed off of podiums and down the rankings.

The fact that there's a lack of good data is another part of the issue itself, separate but utterly nefarious; several groups and organisations (both officially organised and layperson online campaign groups who would consider themselves trans allies) have threatened, harassed, doxxed and bullied academics for attempting to gather this data and statistics, and done the same to sociologists and psychologists attempting to study the roots and potential social effects of issues surrounding transgenderism, declaring it "hateful", "offensive" and "unacceptable" whilst similtaneously funding and publishing dubious research and bogus biological "science" that's agenda-driven and nowhere near to being unbiased or borne of simple academic curiosity. So the lack of statistics is for a reason, and the data that is available is highly suspect. This was allowed to go on for the better part of a decade but has ended up being a shot in the foot. It's backfired spectacularly, and now even the pursuit of that knowledge (let alone any reliable data) is going to be out of reach for a generation. That's the legacy of stonewall. Utter disaster, ten steps backwards, and a backlash that plays right into the hands of right wing politics in general.

It makes me despair, honestly.

LOL Cherie I am using cis as an adjective to refer to a collective. I’ve told you before if I refer to cis it’s generally, and not aimed at you specifically if that’s not how you identify. Why do you insist on thinking I’m talking about you if you don’t identify as a cis woman? If someone talks about women named Mary do you tell them to stop calling you Mary or do you understand that they’re not talking about you because they know your name isn’t Mary?

Additionally, you don’t complain when I use the word ‘trans women” because it doesn’t apply to you, which is funny because the meaning of the word trans is literally the opposite of the word cis and therefore makes the usage of both words legitimate.

You on the other hand have referred to someone specific, someone born as a female and raised as a female as a MAN. What I do by saying cis and what you do by misgendering someone are two very different things. You must know that.

At the very most she might be intersex or have some other biological anomaly, but that doesn’t mean she’s a man. Do you really think she was born male and then everyone in her life, in a Muslim country, colluded and lied about it and changed her sex and then said Muslim country sent a trans person to the Olympics? Yeah, sounds likely.

Are there any women on this thread who "identify as a cis woman"? Anyone? Anyone at all?

Y’all have such a problem with anyone identifying as anything they want so unlikely

Have I been referring to any women specifically on this thread as cis women, or have I been speaking about the entire population? If you feel it doesn't apply to you, then that's fine I am not talking about you.

I'll say it again though... cis just means the opposite of trans. It's not an insult. It's an adjective. It's not the same as calling someone born female and raised female a male because they may have a genetic abnormality. Ew.

That doesn't sound likely.

What does sound likely in a country that rejects anything other than sex at birth, is that this person was born biologically male but with ambiguous genitalia (not particularly uncommon) and was declared female on their birth certificate, but in fact is biologically male and then underwent male puberty, whilst still being legally classed as female in their country - as that country likely has no legal framework that would allow for changing it, even on discovery that they were actually born male. "The paperwork says female and that's that", I imagine may be the stance.

Spexulation of course, but I think a likely scenario IF it is true that genetic testing has indeed shown them to be biologically male.

In theory; she may not even have known.

You're talking generally about natural born women. I am a natural born woman. I don't have to identify as anything nor watch while you shove women into a pigeonhole to suit your own agenda.

I recall posting some decent evidence and agreement that said had he been born in Europe he wouod have been correctly assigned male at birth, but he was born in Algeria..

It's not going to be confirmed easily if it involves anything medical

I haven't met a single woman that has ever used the term personally, much less in this thread. I've never heard the term from other professionals or even in the medical field... it's clearly a minority view (or term).

I don’t go around calling myself a cis man generally, but if I am having a conversation about trans men and cis men I will say “cis men” and “trans men” to distinguish between which of the men I am talking about.

If I’m having a conversation about men and am discussing the differences in life between straight men and gay men I will refer to them as straight men and gay men, not “men” and “gay men”.

If I am having a conversation about men and am referring to the differences in life between white men and black men, I will say “white men” and “black men” not “men” and “black men”.

If I am having a conversation about men and the differences of views between Conservative men and Liberal Men I will say Conservative men and Liberal men not “Men” and “Conservative Men”

It really is just that simple and really isn’t that deep.

I prefer the old ways / days tbh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i'm just stating facts, hun


transitioning from male to female, or vice versa is forbidden, it says so in the Quran


same how those terrorists are also against their own religion kinda, since terrorism is a sin




you say christian catholics are a strict religion, but the Islam is also quite strict honestly

The reason for the loses are probably due to them facing another trans competitor.

The examples above are like comparing apples and oranges, we were born women, not cis women, transwomen were born men hence the prefix trans to denote they were born men, now that to me is pretty simple, women do not need the prefix cis just to soothe the brows of trans women which is essentially what adding the prefix is, if you are talking about women and transwomen its pretty evident who is who to everyone.

I disagree, but I'll stop saying cis woman on this forum.

While we are doing a sweep of language that's annoying/can be seen as offensive, please can we start saying "trans woman" instead of "transwoman" as the latter isn't correct and infers a type of othering that removes them as women.

If we could also refrain from calling Imane Khelif a man that would also be great. Regardless of any test results (of which we have no actual evidence) she was born a female, raised a female and identifies as such and it would be great to respect that.

True.

I still think that the Media is muddying the waters with all of the speculation.

Agreed thank you

What if I told you they weren't tho?

Olympic champion Imane Khelif is skipping the Eindhoven Box Cup in the Netherlands less than a week after World Boxing announced mandatory sex testing for all athletes.

I wouldn't believe you.. you are 2, one dimensional, on this subject.

…when Imane was being discussed during the Olympics, I looked at some of her fight losses, which is something that conflicted me a lot because it seemed to contradict ‘advantaged’…I’m not someone who is hugely familiar with boxing but I recall someone saying that they personally felt that Imane’s win against Angela Carini, was it…?..didn’t to them feel as though it displayed any fighting technique as such but just more ‘force and power’, that they wouldn’t have said that she excelled in her sport other than a physical power…which is interesting for me because she was assigned female at birth and has lived her childhood and life as female so therefore has not had ‘the privilege’ of male in her home country in terms of training…as a female, she wasn’t able to train as a boxer until she was much older…16yrs old, I think…which is very late for an Olympic athlete/competitor…and in that training that many female competing boxers would have had from a much younger age, is that not where techniques and refinements and the skills of competing in general are learned…?…so it could be said, that her development in the sport is/has been late because of her country restrictions of being female…?…and maybe explain convincing losses of the past to those who have honed and finessed their techniques as well as any physical power they have…I don’t know what her recent fights/history have been other than the Olympics so I don’t know what win/loss results there have been in recent years but I think the Kellie Harrington loss was a few years ago so it would be interesting to know in recent years, whether the wins are the dominating results now…I guess that there is no way of knowing that without risking the physical safety of a competitor with a potential power advantage in a combat arena…

The thing is, whilst I think for linguistic/conversational simplicity, It think it would be useful to have a word that can be used in this distinguishing way (when discussing trans issues, specifically) HOWEVER what I do find completely disingenuous is pretending that there isn't a very good reason that women have taken against it even when used in good faith. It was used pointedly/as a slur for years. You understand this, the people doing it understand this, they MUST, given the number of words that have become slurs against them. Using a word pointedly (or knowing it has been used this way) and then insisting "you shouldn't have a problem with this word when it's not being used as a slur :)" is gaslight. You might as well be saying "Well, breeders is accurate for people with kids, it only means people who have offspring :)".

The irony here of course is that it kind of falls under the same thing. There is no meaningful difference between "trans woman" and "transwoman" other than the inference but you can clearly see why that is a problem whilst denying that "cis" is a problem. I get a bit stuck on my answer here because it is used pointedly but it's hard to say that the "space" makes an objective difference beyond intent. But it is -- you have to accept, I'm afraid -- a perfectly legitimate opinion to believe that biologically male trans individuals are not women. You cannot legally discriminate against them for that... but as an individual opinion, yes you are allowed to believe that trans women are not women. Thought-policing is not the vibe. I'm (largely) fine with restrictions on actions and behaviour, but not opinions.

Similar to the above, I think "a man" is pointed however even if you think it's respectful to avoid saying "male" (if proven) or "potentially male" (speculative) I think it does cobble the discussion. How else would you say it if you believe that this individual may actually be biologically male?

Yes people tend to forget that boxing is not UFC - fights usually don't end in knockouts, it's a points-based sport an so skill will also factor in massively in the lighter weight categories. The physical strength and reach advantage is the reason she won most of her fights, often against higher-skilled and better trained fighters, and is really exactly WHY it's such an unfair advantage.

I watched the fight against Kellie Harrington and Kellie was a far better boxer, imane barely landed a punch, they were in different weight classes though last Olympics so there was no rematch between them to see if it would have had a different outcome