For the record, cisgender women are banned from international track and field competition, if they have a testosterone level above an arbitrary, unscientific limit. There have been women with naturally higher testosterone levels who have been banned. Not the same issue, of course but I thought that it was important to note that some "natural advantages" are allowed but that one isn't.
That is a different issue. One solution for that would be to somehow establish a baseline level for each competitor and for successive tests, see if there is an artificial increase from the baseline.
From what I understand, testosterone levels tend to naturally vary in the same cisgender woman. But I agree that there should be a better approach. And I think that it should err on inclusion rather than exclusion.
No I'm okay with assaulting bigots. Big difference. We can have a respectable conversation on trade or whatever, and agree to disagree when opinions don't align.
On this topic however there's nothing to discuss. That's cut and dry.
It's pretty cut and dry to people who don't really care about trans people, too. People, who aren't knowingly affected by an issue, can much more easily not care about it and much more easily "be above it" and discuss it in an "objective," dispassionate way. In fact, violence by anti-discrimination activists can bother them much more than discrimination (including fatal violence) against marginalized people. Some people still shit on abolitionist, John Brown, more than they do the brutal enslavement of black people in the U.S. (and they're not all foaming at the mouth, anti-black racists).
That said, I think that, if violence is used, it should be used effectively to move closer towards a positive goal. Just lashing out can scare people into accepting some positive change. But that will tend to come from larger scale violence. Just assaulting this woman or an alt-right leader allows them to play on their victimhood, allows people who were already opposed to positive change to point to the assault and hide their bigotry behind criticism of the assault, and turn off people who were hypothetically on the fence.
Don't agree? Look at how our governments and right wing organizations have infiltrated activist groups and peaceful protests to encourage violence and property destruction. Violence that isn't well-thought-out tends to not only be ineffective, but also counterproductive. If the opposition wants us to do that, why play into it?
That's agreeable. The swimmer or whatever is likely talking from a place of selfishness or ignorance. Unless they're an anti-trans activist person it's probably not as constructive. I don't necessarily feel bad for them either.
Don't start projecting that nonsense on to me. If it's taking attention away at all then it's already too much.
Disenfranchising minority groups is a nonstarter.
Ah, ignore the issue and hope it goes away. Let me ask you this though. You're so against "disenfranchising" people, what about the "disenfranchisement" of biological women? Do you not care about them?
You realize that's a terf argument right? Losing a match or game is a whole lot less significant than "othering" a person. That's a more acceptable compromise.
Sometimes you lose and that's okay. Not the end of the world.
It's pretty cut and dry to people who don't really care about trans people, too. People, who aren't knowingly affected by an issue, can much more easily not care about it and much more easily "be above it" and discuss it in an "objective," dispassionate way. In fact, violence by anti-discrimination activists can bother them much more than discrimination (including fatal violence) against marginalized people. Some people still shit on abolitionist, John Brown, more than they do the brutal enslavement of black people in the U.S. (and they're not all foaming at the mouth, anti-black racists).
That said, I think that, if violence is used, it should be used effectively to move closer towards a positive goal. Just lashing out can scare people into accepting some positive change. But that will tend to come from larger scale violence. Just assaulting this woman or an alt-right leader allows them to play on their victimhood, allows people who were already opposed to positive change to point to the assault and hide their bigotry behind criticism of the assault, and turn off people who were hypothetically on the fence.
Don't agree? Look at how our governments and right wing organizations have infiltrated activist groups and peaceful protests to encourage violence and property destruction. Violence that isn't well-thought-out tends to not only be ineffective, but also counterproductive. If the opposition wants us to do that, why play into it?
That's agreeable. The swimmer or whatever is likely talking from a place of selfishness or ignorance. Unless they're an anti-trans activist person it's probably not as constructive. I don't necessarily feel bad for them either.
She's definitely an anti-trans activist. If her views on transgenders were solely regarding sports, she would have no reason to be pissy about Bud Light or to intentionally misgender people.
That's agreeable. The swimmer or whatever is likely talking from a place of selfishness or ignorance. Unless they're an anti-trans activist person it's probably not as constructive. I don't necessarily feel bad for them either.
She's definitely an anti-trans activist. If her views on transgenders were solely regarding sports, she would have no reason to be pissy about Bud Light or to intentionally misgender people.
Considering how oppressive the beer monopoly is, and how most of the major domestic beer companies have done the same thing? I hope they like local IPAs lol
Sometimes you lose and that's okay. Not the end of the world.
That's not exactly the point of athletic "competition". Outside of "participation" trophies for six (6) year olds' in tee-ball, doing your best is noted by placing. That doesn't mean your nonsense is completely without value. They could compete with the sex they are. It's the clean sweep of win- They can compete participate, fairness is preserved, it doesn't matter if they win or lose, and they can still wear a bra and panties on the way home.
That is a different issue. One solution for that would be to somehow establish a baseline level for each competitor and for successive tests, see if there is an artificial increase from the baseline.
From what I understand, testosterone levels tend to naturally vary in the same cisgender woman. But I agree that there should be a better approach. And I think that it should err on inclusion rather than exclusion.
I don't know what cisgender is, but this is what happens when we create problems. The test is put in place for the same reasion we have doping tests- competitors seeking an advantage (I assume to improve chances of winning). Are drug testing methods perfect? Obviously no. Why do we have testosterone testing? Again, competitors seeking an advantage (I assume to improve chances of winning).
From what I understand, testosterone levels tend to naturally vary in the same cisgender woman. But I agree that there should be a better approach. And I think that it should err on inclusion rather than exclusion.
I don't know what cisgender is, but this is what happens when we create problems. The test is put in place for the same reasion we have doping tests- competitors seeking an advantage (I assume to improve chances of winning). Are drug testing methods perfect? Obviously no. Why do we have testosterone testing? Again, competitors seeking an advantage (I assume to improve chances of winning).
Are the testing methods perfect? Obviously no.
The testosterone is natural in their body. Drop the "I don't know that that is" act if you don't know what you're talking about then you can't argue against anything
Sometimes you lose and that's okay. Not the end of the world.
That's not exactly the point of athletic "competition". Outside of "participation" trophies for six (6) year olds' in tee-ball, doing your best is noted by placing. That doesn't mean your nonsense is completely without value. They could compete with the sex they are. It's the clean sweep of win- They can compete participate, fairness is preserved, it doesn't matter if they win or lose, and they can still wear a bra and panties on the way home.
I suggest you do research before you bother replying to people.
The test is put in place for the same reasion we have doping tests- competitors seeking an advantage (I assume to improve chances of winning). Are drug testing methods perfect? Obviously no. Why do we have testosterone testing? Again, competitors seeking an advantage (I assume to improve chances of winning).
Are the testing methods perfect? Obviously no.
Drop the "I don't know why that is" act if you don't know what you're talking about then you can't argue against anything, I suggest you do research before you bother replying to people.