[Crimson Dynamo]

that bloke in USA swimming is a disgrace to sport and how he can brass neck his way to victory is actually disgusting

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

If you don't believe sportspeople should be put at a physical disadvantage (which I agree with), then sending trans people back to fight or run against men after taking estrogen is exactly what you're suggesting. The same way you want "women" loaded up with testosterone to go and fight other women. It's just nonsense.

Women who take performance-enhancing drugs are generally kicked out of sports anyway, so why should trans-identifying women be any different? I don't think men who deplete their own strength are penalised per say, but if they're damaging their own performance by altering their body chemistry, then it's their own fault if they can no longer make the cut.

[user104658]

I don't think there's an answer to the sports issue. Trans women who were born male are at a distinct advantage in women's sports, but will be unable to compete in male physical sports at a high level after taking hormones. Conversely, Trans men who were born female are at a distinct advantage in women's sports because of the performance enhancing effects of testosterone - but its never going to be to the extent where they can compete in male sports. Both end up in a sort of middle ground. But there's (for obvious reasons) no desire for a 3rd category.

As I see it, unfortunately giving up competitive sport probably just has to be seen as a cost of transitioning. It doesn't mean people can't play sports as a hobby, but there's no way that it can be in ranked competition in the name of fairness. The evidence of the physical advantage is overwhelming.

[Niamh.]

Exactly TS, it is unfortunate but you can't sacrifice fairness and safety for women to accommodate a minority of people, I say you "can't " but I guess it should have been "shouldn't " because that's exactly what is happening

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't think there's an answer to the sports issue. Trans women who were born male are at a distinct advantage in women's sports, but will be unable to compete in male physical sports at a high level after taking hormones.

That's their own fault if they're serious about their sports, they should forsake the hormones and compete against the other men to the best of their ability.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Conversely, Trans men who were born female are at a distinct advantage in women's sports because of the performance enhancing effects of testosterone - but its never going to be to the extent where they can compete in male sports.

Quite. The only "fair" way for the transmen themselves and the other women would be of they didn't medically transition, and stayed in the women's divisions.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Women who take performance-enhancing drugs are generally kicked out of sports anyway, so why should trans-identifying women be any different? I don't think men who deplete their own strength are penalised per say, but if they're damaging their own performance by altering their body chemistry, then it's their own fault if they can no longer make the cut.

It's not a performance-enhancing drug if a person is transitioning.

Ok so here's where I stand on this whole issue.

Firstly, Niamhs concerns are valid and understandable. I'm sympathetic to them myself, and actually believe a trans sports body will need to be formed so that everyone is on a level playing field.

However, trans people aren't going anywhere, a new bathroom category will not be created, and some tolerance is also going to be needed to ease integration.

There is no data to suggest that trans women are more likely to use access to historically trad spaces in order to commit sexual attacks. Women are still way more in danger from men they already have relationships with than anyone in a bathroom, and trans women are 4x more likely to be the victims of sexual violence or abuse.

These are the vulnerable people that folks insist should be using "male" bathrooms, because a trans woman in a mens bathroom would face absolutely no danger. And that's my whole issue really, that everything is looked at from the perspective of the status quo.

It should also be completely visible to anyone with a brain cell, that the folks women currently think are their allies in this area are anything but. The same tactics were used against gay people as they became more visible, with women being co-opted to protest about harm to the family, in order to provide cover for the biggots shouting fags and *****.

There are really complicated issues at play that go well beyond sports and bathrooms, so I'd personally question the motives of anyone that uses descriptors such as "bloke" and only wants to talk bathrooms and sports. Again, gay people in the dressing rooms/arses against the walls, lads, was even a thing when I was a kid, and probably still is today. It's exactly the same prejudice involved with ant-trans movements.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

It's not a performance-enhancing drug if a person is transitioning.

Ok so here's where I stand on this whole issue.

Firstly, Niamhs concerns are valid and understandable. I'm sympathetic to them myself, and actually believe a trans sports body will need to be formed so that everyone is on a level playing field.

However, trans people aren't going anywhere, a new bathroom category will not be created, and some tolerance is also going to be needed to ease integration.

There is no data to suggest that trans women are more likely to use access to historically trad spaces in order to commit sexual attacks. Women are still way more in danger from men they already have relationships with than anyone in a bathroom, and trans women are 4x more likely to be the victims of sexual violence or abuse.

These are the vulnerable people that folks insist should be using "male" bathrooms, because a trans woman in a mens bathroom would face absolutely no danger. And that's my whole issue really, that everything is looked at from the perspective of the status quo.

It should also be completely visible to anyone with a brain cell, that the folks women currently think are their allies in this area are anything but. The same tactics were used against gay people as they became more visible, with women being co-opted to protest about harm to the family, in order to provide cover for the biggots shouting fags and *****.

There are really complicated issues at play that go well beyond sports and bathrooms, so I'd personally question the motives of anyone that uses descriptors such as "bloke" and only wants to talk bathrooms and sports. Again, gay people in the dressing rooms/arses against the walls, lads, was even a thing when I was a kid, and probably still is today. It's exactly the same prejudice involved with ant-trans movements.

Preach!

The same ‘think of the children!!’ arguments were used to discourage the gay rights movement as it’s now being used against trans people, because anything other than straight and cis is apparently naturally dangerous to vulnerable people and their lifestyles, it’s nauseating and that’s why so many of the LGBT community are so against what’s happening, not because they hate women, but because it’s a very clear repeat of what has already happened to gays in the past

[Niamh.]

It's not even genuine transpeople that are the issue here Slim. I don't think transpeople are more predatory or more violent, the concerns are around creating loopholes for men who like to cheat or are predators easier access to do just that and it removes women and girls rights and ability to even challenge a man who's exploiting these loopholes, just look at the Wii Spa incident for evidence of that and how the women complaining were treated and it was tried to be played off in the media as a fake story which was untrue. Women's sex based safe spaces are there for a reason, why should we have to give up our safe guards to other people, why are our rights and our safety less important?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

It's not a performance-enhancing drug if a person is transitioning.

Transmen are literally enchancing their performance by taking the "transition" hormones. It doesn't matter whether or not they think they're men, taking "transition" hormones gives them an unfair advantage against other women, and should be regarded the same way as taking other boosters.

[user104658]

The main focus of the current debates (that's having people branded supposed TERFs) is on self gender ID which would allow anyone to declare their own gender at any time. There is no data that shows genuine trans women are an increased risk to women. There is, horribly enough, ABUNDANT data that men are a risk to women, and that predatory men will be willing to use self-ID legislation to gain access to vulnerable women. As I've said before, I wish I still lived in a bubble where I didn't know this to be the case, but I don't. The things men will do, and have done, to gain access to victims is utterly mind-boggling.

Why people are determined to deflect away from this, I don't know. I can only assume its agenda based. I keep seeing people insisting blue in the face that Trans Rights Activists are not pursuing this legislative change. They 100% absolutely are and it wouldn't take long to look that up? So I can only assume that people simply don't want to know, or don't want to lose face by having to admit that it poses a massive risk to women's safety.

Ffs it poses a massive risk to actual transwomen's safety but no one cares! Self-ID and gender non-binary ideology trumps all other concerns. There are plenty of trans women and men who are vo ally critical of self-ID and the dogma of current gender ideology. They're branded, dismissed, ridiculed and insulted along with the "TERFs" for Doing Trans All Wrong.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

because anything other than straight and cis is apparently naturally dangerous to vulnerable people and their lifestyles

Men are dangerous to vulnerable women. Full stop. Do you not believe that, or do you genuinely just not care? Is it considered acceptable collateral?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Men are dangerous to vulnerable women. Full stop. Do you not believe that, or do you genuinely just not care? Is it considered acceptable collateral?

The ugly truth is yes we are considered acceptable collateral, you can't argue for removing our safe guards unless you think that

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Preach!

The same ‘think of the children!!’ arguments were used to discourage the gay rights movement as it’s now being used against trans people, because anything other than straight and cis is apparently naturally dangerous to vulnerable people and their lifestyles, it’s nauseating and that’s why so many of the LGBT community are so against what’s happening, not because they hate women, but because it’s a very clear repeat of what has already happened to gays in the past

I do think that cis women need to be heard and understood though. No one really likes change, and especially when it comes at the cost of our own perceived safety, so looking from the outside in, I think some of the absolutism for trans acceptance does need to be lowered a notch or 2 at the same time, because this is a completely new issue and if everything is black or white, it will only lead to things getting worse.

There will definitely be horrendous incidents that flair up from the new reality, and at that point, statistics about how much more dangerous someones husband/da/brother is, isn't really going to cut it, and will only lead to a more extremist anti-trans movement that will be far more dangerous than anything currently imaginable.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Men are dangerous to vulnerable women. Full stop. Do you not believe that, or do you genuinely just not care? Is it considered acceptable collateral?

No, predators are dangerous to vulnerable women, it’s got nothing to do with their gender, being a man, doesn’t make someone dangerous, a predator can be a man or a woman

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's not even genuine transpeople that are the issue here Slim. I don't think transpeople are more predatory or more violent, the concerns are around creating loopholes for men who like to cheat or are predators easier access to do just that and it removes women and girls rights and ability to even challenge a man who's exploiting these loopholes, just look at the Wii Spa incident for evidence of that and how the women complaining were treated and it was tried to be played off in the media as a fake story which was untrue. Women's sex based safe spaces are there for a reason, why should we have to give up our safe guards to other people, why are our rights and our safety less important?

I genuinely understand where you're coming from. I believe unisex changing spaces in swimming pools are the highest location for sexual assaults in the whole "changing rooms and toilets" debate, in some data collection that was done a couple of years ago, so I understand the foundation your fears are coming from.

Your rights are not any less important, but we currently have a societal minority underclass with fewer rights, and so I think bringing these people actually in to society is just as important.

No one thinks because you call yourself a woman, that you're either mentally ill, an attention seeker, or a sexual predator; and yet that is the way some of the most vulnerable people in society are viewed.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Liam-

No, predators are dangerous to vulnerable women, it’s got nothing to do with their gender, being a man, doesn’t make someone dangerous, a predator can be a man or a woman

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

More woke madness and another reason (if you need anymore) why starmer will never be PM

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and pretending its so for some woke agenda is actually moving backwards

more power to her elbow

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

that bloke in USA swimming is a disgrace to sport and how he can brass neck his way to victory is actually disgusting

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I mean... You can either agree or disagree with him, but using a facepalm emoji rather than an explanation, when above is the majority of your thread contribution, is a little weird.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I mean... You can either agree or disagree with him, but using a facepalm emoji rather than an explanation, when above is the majority of your thread contribution, is a little weird.

No it's symbolic of the post and is highly effective

As your reply highlighted

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Preach!

The same ‘think of the children!!’ arguments were used to discourage the gay rights movement as it’s now being used against trans people, because anything other than straight and cis is apparently naturally dangerous to vulnerable people and their lifestyles, it’s nauseating and that’s why so many of the LGBT community are so against what’s happening, not because they hate women, but because it’s a very clear repeat of what has already happened to gays in the past

By using 'think of the children' as some perceived hysterical reaction you are playing to the narrative that the opinions of women on this topic are not valid.
Not sure why you are trying to align this with the gay rights movement decades ago ..I f you didn't know there was legistation against the teaching of, and limited information around st that time following decriminalisation. Do you really think that all women today are so shallow, vacuous and misinformed haven't bothered to look into this objectively?

I can see predudice here, and it's not from the women in the thread.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

By using 'think of the children' as some perceived hysterical reaction you are playing to the narrative that the opinions of women on this topic are not valid.
Not sure why you are trying to align this with the gay rights movement decades ago ..I f you didn't know there was legistation against the teaching of, and limited information around st that time following decriminalisation. Do you really think that all women today are so shallow, vacuous and misinformed haven't bothered to look into this objectively?

I can see predudice here, and it's not from the women in the thread.

That’s a whole lot of reaching you’ve done there, but sure, if that’s what you want to think, knock yourself out

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Liam-

That’s a whole lot of reaching you’ve done there, but sure, if that’s what you want to think, knock yourself out

And your silly comment that the women of today are the same as women at the time of the gay rights movement wasn't? ... :/

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I genuinely understand where you're coming from. I believe unisex changing spaces in swimming pools are the highest location for sexual assaults in the whole "changing rooms and toilets" debate, in some data collection that was done a couple of years ago, so I understand the foundation your fears are coming from.



You're rights are not any less important, but we currently have a societal minority underclass with fewer rights, and so I think bringing these people actually in to society is just as important.



No one thinks because you call yourself a woman, that you're either mentally ill, an attention seeker, or a sexual predator; and yet that is the way some of the most vulnerable people in society are viewed.

I'm not without sympathy for transpeople but the fact of the matter is I don't just call myself a woman, I am a woman in the biological sense and its in that sense where the need for these sex segregated areas, sports etc is.

[Kizzy]

I'm not happy with being assigned a label. I'm not 'a person with a cervix' or a 'cis' I am a woman. I'm very proud to be a woman and I object totally to anyone foisting their made up terms on me.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

And your silly comment that the women of today are the same as women at the time of the gay rights movement wasn't? ... :/

I... literally didn’t say that at all though, but what I did say, which is that the principle of the two arguments are based off of the same idea, I’ll 100% stand by

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

No, predators are dangerous to vulnerable women, it’s got nothing to do with their gender, being a man, doesn’t make someone dangerous, a predator can be a man or a woman

99% are men and they aren't particularly rare. You're living in a comfortable, naive fantasy.