One of my main points of frustration with the whole push to accept transgender individuals in competitive sports leagues according to their identified gender is that this flies in the face of something that activists have been saying for decades.
What they said since I first started paying attention to transgender issues, about twenty years ago, is that they're trying to broaden people's understanding of sex and gender, to get people to recognize that gender and biological sex, and also things like sexuality and social presentation, are all different things which we should be able to understand and discuss separately. Fair enough. But if you accept that, there's essentially *no reason* to segregate sports leagues by gender, while there are very good reasons to segregate by biological sex!
Insisting that we should allow people into sports competition based on their identified gender is basically giving up the entire premise that trans activism is pushing people towards a more complex and nuanced worldview, and surrendering it to a simpler one where instead of only considering the relevance of biological sex, we only consider gender, even in situations where that makes no pragmatic sense. It's no wonder that a lot of people find this kind of model unpalatable; it's impractical, transparently ideological, and doesn't mesh at all with how the activists represent their own position.
As to why there are separate prisons for men and women: from all the prison dramas I've watched, it's so men will rape other men rather than women.
I agree with the article's premise. Sadly, I feel like it is heavy lifting is beyond the pale for most Americans, where they are failing at orders of magnitude simpler reasoning.
I was hoping that you'd get into some specific examples in the transwhatever debate (you touched on them, tantalizingly) and show us how the stick fallacy was being used.
"Birds of a feather": -- clearly, penguins, ostriches, ducks, swans, and terns -- one good one deserves another -- should all be treated equally. As a bit of local colour, Canada's Supreme Court is being "tasked" with dealing with some BC ostriches which are "under the sword of Damocles" for supposedly being "vectors" for the spread of one virus or another.
But, more particularly and relative to the transgender clusterfuck, the whole issue seems to tern, so to speak, on who has a right to the title, and identity, "woman" -- "hear me roar!! (rah, rah 🙄)". As I've frequently argued, much of that Lilliputian civil war, and "Rape of the Lock, part deux") seems predicated on the question of who will claim "the golden apple" -- "for the fairest". Notable contenders maybe being exemplified or characterized by transwomen's envy -- Dylan Mulvaney for example -- and women’s vanity -- maybe J.K. -- "mudbloods" -- Rowling or Helen -- Sex Matters -- Joyce entering the lists on that side of battle.
"Stay tuned for another thrilling episode; don't touch that dial!" Still think that "a pox on both your houses" has some merit.
Every single human trait is endlessly variable so strict labelling is a convenience with utility but is not informative. We’re far too complex beings
Come to think of it Why wouldn’t biological sex and self perception of gender not vary in a miniscule percentage of humans?
BTW There are still old style swimming pools where changing areas are not segregated in the UK. That’s a rarity though and mostly in culturally homogeneous places.
Sports can just make a Transgendered Male and Transgendered Female category. Trans are an infinitesimal minority it’s probably not financially feasible
> "Every single human trait is endlessly variable ..."
Horse feathers, being charitable. No more than transgender articles of faith subsumed by their mantra, "trans women are women!!11!!". No, they ain't. At best, they're no more than male transvestites if they still have their nuts attached, and sexless eunuchs if they don't.
There are only two -- count 'em, two -- sexes, the defining traits being, to a first approximation, whether one has ovaries (females) or whether one has testicles (males). There ain't no other types of gonads -- ovaries & testicles -- because there ain't no other types of "reproductive cells" (as one of Trump’s EOs put it) other than ova -- AKA eggs produced by ovaries -- or sperm -- produced by testicles. There ain't no "spergs" or "eggerm" in between those two fundamental, bedrock types of cells so there are only two sexes: absolutely no transwoman is EVER going to produce any ova of "her" own so won't EVER qualify as female. Suck it buttercups.
"Weight is such an extreme determinative factor in combat sports that an untrained 250-pound couch potato could walk into any boxing gym and absolutely demolish a 100-pound opponent with decades of training."
I'm no expert but I doubt this is literally true—reaction time and endurance make some difference. If it was no-holds-barred wrestling then the statement might be more true, but the rules of boxing are, if I understand right, partly to make technique more important than it would be without them (the bigger guy can't just jump on the smaller guy). But of course your larger point is valid!
The ability to throw and take punches are foundational to boxing ability. 100lbs is TINY and so while they might have remarkable agility and can dodge for a while, all it would take is one hit connecting to end the match. Meanwhile, the couch potato can reliably tank for quite a long time given the 100-pounder's meager striking power.
One of my main points of frustration with the whole push to accept transgender individuals in competitive sports leagues according to their identified gender is that this flies in the face of something that activists have been saying for decades.
What they said since I first started paying attention to transgender issues, about twenty years ago, is that they're trying to broaden people's understanding of sex and gender, to get people to recognize that gender and biological sex, and also things like sexuality and social presentation, are all different things which we should be able to understand and discuss separately. Fair enough. But if you accept that, there's essentially *no reason* to segregate sports leagues by gender, while there are very good reasons to segregate by biological sex!
Insisting that we should allow people into sports competition based on their identified gender is basically giving up the entire premise that trans activism is pushing people towards a more complex and nuanced worldview, and surrendering it to a simpler one where instead of only considering the relevance of biological sex, we only consider gender, even in situations where that makes no pragmatic sense. It's no wonder that a lot of people find this kind of model unpalatable; it's impractical, transparently ideological, and doesn't mesh at all with how the activists represent their own position.
Only tangentially connected:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJ4iv5mOoIY/?igsh=MTJhZHJjbW5saDdiMw==
As to why there are separate prisons for men and women: from all the prison dramas I've watched, it's so men will rape other men rather than women.
I agree with the article's premise. Sadly, I feel like it is heavy lifting is beyond the pale for most Americans, where they are failing at orders of magnitude simpler reasoning.
I was hoping that you'd get into some specific examples in the transwhatever debate (you touched on them, tantalizingly) and show us how the stick fallacy was being used.
"Birds of a feather": -- clearly, penguins, ostriches, ducks, swans, and terns -- one good one deserves another -- should all be treated equally. As a bit of local colour, Canada's Supreme Court is being "tasked" with dealing with some BC ostriches which are "under the sword of Damocles" for supposedly being "vectors" for the spread of one virus or another.
But, more particularly and relative to the transgender clusterfuck, the whole issue seems to tern, so to speak, on who has a right to the title, and identity, "woman" -- "hear me roar!! (rah, rah 🙄)". As I've frequently argued, much of that Lilliputian civil war, and "Rape of the Lock, part deux") seems predicated on the question of who will claim "the golden apple" -- "for the fairest". Notable contenders maybe being exemplified or characterized by transwomen's envy -- Dylan Mulvaney for example -- and women’s vanity -- maybe J.K. -- "mudbloods" -- Rowling or Helen -- Sex Matters -- Joyce entering the lists on that side of battle.
"Stay tuned for another thrilling episode; don't touch that dial!" Still think that "a pox on both your houses" has some merit.
Every single human trait is endlessly variable so strict labelling is a convenience with utility but is not informative. We’re far too complex beings
Come to think of it Why wouldn’t biological sex and self perception of gender not vary in a miniscule percentage of humans?
BTW There are still old style swimming pools where changing areas are not segregated in the UK. That’s a rarity though and mostly in culturally homogeneous places.
Sports can just make a Transgendered Male and Transgendered Female category. Trans are an infinitesimal minority it’s probably not financially feasible
> "Every single human trait is endlessly variable ..."
Horse feathers, being charitable. No more than transgender articles of faith subsumed by their mantra, "trans women are women!!11!!". No, they ain't. At best, they're no more than male transvestites if they still have their nuts attached, and sexless eunuchs if they don't.
There are only two -- count 'em, two -- sexes, the defining traits being, to a first approximation, whether one has ovaries (females) or whether one has testicles (males). There ain't no other types of gonads -- ovaries & testicles -- because there ain't no other types of "reproductive cells" (as one of Trump’s EOs put it) other than ova -- AKA eggs produced by ovaries -- or sperm -- produced by testicles. There ain't no "spergs" or "eggerm" in between those two fundamental, bedrock types of cells so there are only two sexes: absolutely no transwoman is EVER going to produce any ova of "her" own so won't EVER qualify as female. Suck it buttercups.
Trans”gendered” not Trans biological sex. Even biological sex is variable.
Edit: look at us two, even the ability of that curious rare category of people to trigger is obviously a spectrum!
"Weight is such an extreme determinative factor in combat sports that an untrained 250-pound couch potato could walk into any boxing gym and absolutely demolish a 100-pound opponent with decades of training."
I'm no expert but I doubt this is literally true—reaction time and endurance make some difference. If it was no-holds-barred wrestling then the statement might be more true, but the rules of boxing are, if I understand right, partly to make technique more important than it would be without them (the bigger guy can't just jump on the smaller guy). But of course your larger point is valid!
The ability to throw and take punches are foundational to boxing ability. 100lbs is TINY and so while they might have remarkable agility and can dodge for a while, all it would take is one hit connecting to end the match. Meanwhile, the couch potato can reliably tank for quite a long time given the 100-pounder's meager striking power.
When I picture a couch potato I'm not necessarily picturing a lot of upper-body strength. But it's certainly possible you're right!
That's why, even though I agree with the message, I'm annoyed by the slogan "sex stork is work"
The typo made a bird pun! (Or it's no typo and I'm dumb)
Nice!
It's a typo but it's better that way