3 ms·
>Nobody is banned from the "men's" category, including unambiguously cisgender women of completely unambiguous sexual characteristics. This is exactly my point
by thunderfork 6mo ago
>Nobody is banned from the "men's" category, including unambiguously cisgender women of completely unambiguous sexual characteristics.
This is exactly my point. Men with unusual characteristics are celebrated, but women with unusual characteristics are excluded into a non-competitive category.
You can justify it if you'd like, but in a practical sense, no man will ever get to the Olympics only to be turned away because they don't genetically qualify for competition. This is an indignity reserved only for women.
- machomaster 6mo agoAdults can't compete in kids' categories either, not even in boys' or young men'. What an indignity, to be forced to compete fairly. Womp-womp.
- thunderfork 6mo agoRespectfully, I don't think you're engaging with what I'm actually saying here. No adults are training their way to the kid-lympics and then getting cut open and surprised by the count of the rings. Also, the idea of "fairness" is overstated, a naturalist just-so fallacy. Is it "fair" that some male athletes are taller or shorter than others, or have other genetic advantages, for example?