4 ms·

Oh? Why is that?

Nition 4y ago
Are you asking why it should be noted? I'd say because often the Internet makes its mind up about things on limited evidence, or things getting exaggerated as they're repeated, and it's nice to hear the subject's side as well. Otherwise we might be left thinking Justine Sacco is racist etc.
- anoonmoose 4y ago
  - kcplate 4y ago
    Not taking a position one way or the other, but I think it’s really more accurate to describe that she is phobic to the redefinition of historically established words with definitions that describe people who have certain sexual organs.
    - handoflixue 4y ago
      Except it's not about sexual organs, because even getting surgery isn't enough to become a "real woman" by her logic.
      - koonsolo 4y ago
        I'm all in favor of accommodating trans people to live a happy and fulfilled life, but everything has limits. If you define "real" as in: only a real man and a real woman can reproduce, then I guess there is your limit. That's not transphobic, that's reality.
        iamevn 4y ago
        Reality? That's an entirely useless definition for anything I've ever had to care about in my life. It's also logically nonsense before you even get to considering whether people who are infertile get to be "real".
        koonsolo 4y ago
        Ok, different problem then: if you allow all real women (as you define them) in female sports, then there will be no people who were born as female in the top sport. Maybe not a problem for you, but it is a problem if you were born female. In that case the "the people who were born female" seem to need an action group. But they can't because that would be transphobic.
        iamevn 4y ago
        Again, this is a garbage transphobic argument. It leads to people questioning the woman-ness of even cis women who are good at sport. We already have problems where women with naturally higher testosterone than usual are banned from competing[1] or salty parents calling for an investigation into a child's gender because their kids got beaten in sports[2]. TERF shit like this hurts all women. [1]: https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2021/07/02/namibia-400-christine-mboma-beatrice-masilingi-testosterone/ https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2021/07/02/namibia-400-christ... [2]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkgaj8/utah-parents-gender-check-anti-trans-sports https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkgaj8/utah-parents-gender-c...
        koonsolo 4y ago
        Ok, so people born female are out of top sport. Noted.
        _zn02 4y ago
        They're already out of top sport by virtue of not being able to compete against people who are actually at the top of the sport. Really we should be coming up with better ways to divide "top sport" than gender. Weight class, for example. Or just skill level/rankings regardless of gender and stop acting like #1 in both things is the same.

Oh? Why is that?

Are you asking why it should be noted? I'd say because often the Internet makes its mind up about things on limited evidence, or things getting exaggerated as they're repeated, and it's nice to hear the subject's side as well. Otherwise we might be left thinking Justine Sacco is racist etc.

anoonmoose 4y ago
- kcplate 4y ago
  Not taking a position one way or the other, but I think it’s really more accurate to describe that she is phobic to the redefinition of historically established words with definitions that describe people who have certain sexual organs.
  - handoflixue 4y ago
    Except it's not about sexual organs, because even getting surgery isn't enough to become a "real woman" by her logic.
    - koonsolo 4y ago
      I'm all in favor of accommodating trans people to live a happy and fulfilled life, but everything has limits. If you define "real" as in: only a real man and a real woman can reproduce, then I guess there is your limit. That's not transphobic, that's reality.
      - iamevn 4y ago
        Reality? That's an entirely useless definition for anything I've ever had to care about in my life. It's also logically nonsense before you even get to considering whether people who are infertile get to be "real".
        koonsolo 4y ago
        Ok, different problem then: if you allow all real women (as you define them) in female sports, then there will be no people who were born as female in the top sport. Maybe not a problem for you, but it is a problem if you were born female. In that case the "the people who were born female" seem to need an action group. But they can't because that would be transphobic.
        iamevn 4y ago
        Again, this is a garbage transphobic argument. It leads to people questioning the woman-ness of even cis women who are good at sport. We already have problems where women with naturally higher testosterone than usual are banned from competing[1] or salty parents calling for an investigation into a child's gender because their kids got beaten in sports[2]. TERF shit like this hurts all women. [1]: https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2021/07/02/namibia-400-christine-mboma-beatrice-masilingi-testosterone/ https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2021/07/02/namibia-400-christ... [2]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkgaj8/utah-parents-gender-check-anti-trans-sports https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkgaj8/utah-parents-gender-c...
        koonsolo 4y ago
        Ok, so people born female are out of top sport. Noted.
        _zn02 4y ago
        They're already out of top sport by virtue of not being able to compete against people who are actually at the top of the sport. Really we should be coming up with better ways to divide "top sport" than gender. Weight class, for example. Or just skill level/rankings regardless of gender and stop acting like #1 in both things is the same.