To clarify, the pictured poster Caroline Kwan is an ally, not a TERF. The TERFs referred to in the title are the ones ‘protecting a very specific idea of what a woman is’
You must log in or register to comment.
Yep, heard someone complain about Khelif and I asked them if we should have disqualified Phelps considering his genetics give him all the advantages and if they believed we would have complained about Khelif 20 years ago and if they believed that men who’s testosterone is under a certain level should fight in the women’s category. That was the end of them complaining.
50 bucks says they didn’t listen to a word you said and are still complaining about it, just in online echo chambers instead of to you
Well, if that at least shut them up for the time I was hanging around them then good!
I keep bringing up Brittney Griner and ask if she should be forced to play in the NBA and suddenly it’s, “no, she couldn’t even come close to beating the worst NBA player.”
So if you’re a woman with masculine features and want to be an athlete, you can’t compete with anyone apparently.
Do women want to fight Imane? Probably not.
Do I want to fight Tyson in his prime? Probably also no lol
I’m not trying to make her look like Tyson but they are both outside the norm just like 99% of top athletes.
Anyone can become amazing at a sport if they work hard enough at it, but the top athletes are always going to be people who worked hard and have a genetic predisposition to it. Lots of sports are dominated by people who are taller than average. Where do we draw the line on a genetic trait giving someone too much of an advantage?
Do I want to fight Tyson in his prime? Probably also no lol
Do I want to fight Tyson right now at almost 60, also no lol
I don’t want to fight her, and I’m a dude with martial arts training twice her size. The lady has skill.
it reminds me of the recent volleyball injury case that went around. Trans student spiked a volley ball into the head of another student (not exactly intentionally) and it injured them quite significantly. Naturally her first reaction was to bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, nobody would want to be spiked in the face with a volleyball, from a man, women, child, anybody. That shit would at the very least concuss you, and might even kill you in all honesty.
the fact that the other student was trans is probably more inconsequential than you would think.
So far it seems like only Italian women don’t want to fight her.
Reactionaries don’t want womens sports, they want beauty pageants with extra steps; something they can fap to. That’s why they go after somewhat brolic looking women, regardless if they’re cis or trans: they no make pp hard, therefore they shouldn’t be allowed
Look at how they used to require the female athletes to dress in beach volleyball. Men get loose, comfortable shirts and shorts, while woman were allowed a maximum of 10cm of cloth on their bikini bottoms.
And people were pissed when the new options weren’t exposing almost their entire body. Got all angry about the woke giving athletes more options to choose from when performing their sport.
deleted by creator
You seem to be unaware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development issues, particularly 46,XY DSD in competitive female sports.
Can you elaborate in your own words how this is an issue in women’s sports? That wikipedia page only mentioned at the end about “issues” in competitive female sport but did not elaborate and only cited one study. I clicked on the linked study but no one has the time to read eight pages of it especially one that is full of jargon for those without scientific or sports background. So far though, I see that the authors of the study criticised IAAF testing methods as being flawed but I couldn’t find the meat and bones of what specifically they are trying to criticise.
It is a complicated issue, hence the need for details. In a nutshell, rare people like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya have such a significant competitive advantage against vanilla females they would come to dominate some female olympic disciplines to the point it would destroy female olympics as a sport competition. I would argue they need to compete in their own class for the same reasons of fairness as female and male ligas are distinct.
This cannot be discussed rationally in the current political shitstorm unfortunately.
Aren’t the Olympics about finding the most capable athlete from whatever category the sport is separated into? Not even every event is gender segregated, there is no “female Olympics”, there are simply gender segregated Olympic events.
And for those events, if the categories are separated by gender, wouldn’t “rare people” like Caster Semenya be the most deserving female athletes to win Gold in those events?
And if that’s a problem, maybe we need to find a different way to categorize athletes other than the current system that sorts them by their genitals.
vanilla females
Please define “vanilla females.”
Presumably they mean XX cis female persons with no medical disorder altering production or action of any sex-related hormone or anatomy. But that’s a big mouthful to describe a large majority of female persons, and folks get real angry when you describe the by far most common set of common traits a group of humans have as “normal”.
and folks get real angry when you describe the by far most common set of common traits a group of humans have as “normal”.
By that argument, Christianity is normal. It’s the most common religion.
So I assume you think Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam are abnormal, yes?
By that argument, Christianity is normal. It’s the most common religion.
So I assume you think Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam are abnormal, yes?
I think when talking about what religion is “normal” you’re better off to talk about within a given society or region because it is an extremely regional trait and trying to consider it globally makes it less useful. And it shows a lot in how those societies interact in the broad strokes with those religions. Including the presumption that one is at least probably familiar with it and it’s broader teachings by default. For example, in India Hinduism is “normal” and you would expect a typical person to have a familiarity with Hinduism, to be aware of it, to see it’s influences on culture even if a given individual isn’t a devout Hindu. You see the same as regards Christianity in most of western Europe and North America, Mormonism in Utah, Islam in the Middle East, etc.
By comparison, unless you are in one of a few very particular contexts, Scientology is almost never normal.
But then you’re trying to assign a moral value to being “normal.” The degree to which one resembles the average or typical person of some group or social context is not a measure of their goodness or morality.
No matter what arbitrary divisions are in place, be that gender or weight or race or whatever, there will always be people who dominate the field. That doesn’t destroy the Olympics as a sport competition, that is the Olympics as a sport competition. Competing in order to find the best of the best, the “freaks of nature” who manage to far surpass the average person.
Competition is core to human nature, but so is fairness. Which is why men and women compete in different categories. If you want to discourage women athletes to compete it would seem somewhat unfair to me, but really I only care enough to correct technical points in a discussion.
I don’t know your political leanings, but this is consistent with the same people who are anti-DEI and anti-anything else that forces equality.
So what’s so wrong about forcing equality literally anywhere else? Or, why is it necessary only in women’s sports?
Then, going back to the original post, why is Michael Phelps lauded despite having clear genetic advantages?
Or, why is it necessary only in women’s sports?
As a general rule in sports, men participate in essentially “open” leagues, while women’s leagues exist to protect women from having to compete against everyone else to promote women taking part. In other words, women’s leagues are already a form of protectionism to encourage participation because people care about women having a “fair” environment to participate in in a way they do not for men.
This idea that sports leagues for women/girls are a form of protectionism even extends down to school sports and Title IX, which is why under current Title IX policy girls must be allowed to try out for boys teams but not the reverse.
But where are you basing your definition of “fairness”? If you exclude people with a biological advantage, since that would be unfair, then literally all current athletes would be excluded, since by qualifying for the Olympics they have proven that they have a strong biological advantage over the average person.
The only solution is to Harrison Bergeron everyone.
So should someone like Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps have their “own classes”? Who would they be competing against?
They too are “rare people who have a significant competitive advantages against vanillas”.
This cannot be discussed rationally in the current political shitstorm unfortunately.
You misspelled “my own ideology isn’t rational, so I can not discuss this rationally”
Fyi I don’t agree with the previous commenters ideology about two separate classes for women.
I however agree that we can’t discuss this rationally today because social media (including lemmee) is a terrible forum for this discussion, because, unfortunately, a person who is AFAB and has a DSD, or other naturally occurring condition, which gives them more or less testosterone/lactic acid/something else than the typical woman, and thus an advantage, gets conflated with having a trans woman compete, because then the people who feel strongly about trans people on both sides come out of the wood work and start yelling…
And then everyone gets pissed and/or understandardly triggered and nothing can be argued.
By naturally occurring I mean w/o the use of drugs/doping/surgery. Which in my understanding is what’s the case with the boxer.
I don’t post this to argue or convince. Just clarify what I think they’re trying to say.
I won’t respond to the “are they female”/“what to do” debate, only that this forum is terrible to have these debates.
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk/soap box lecture
vanilla females
Yeah, okay.
It’s a reasonable catchall, could have said baseline. Or define things by exclusion, which is unnecessarily technical and verbose.
Ugh I am still so frustrated with you for name-dropping Caster Semenya like you know what you’re talking about! I have the same intersex variation that she (allegedly) has. The only reason anyone cares is that she has an XY karotype. She was born a girl, she was raised a woman. Why should she be disallowed from competing as one? Why is your solution to exclude some cis women from sports as well? Where will it stop?
Someone said it better:
Yep, heard someone complain about Khelif and I asked them if we should have disqualified Phelps considering his genetics give him all the advantages and if they believed we would have complained about Khelif 20 years ago and if they believed that men who’s testosterone is under a certain level should fight in the women’s category. That was the end of them complaining.
Lol, no one complain about Michael Phelps but people are suddenly making faux concerns about women’s sports-- which is specifically strange considering no one says the same about men’s sports. It is though this isn’t motivated by misogyny and transphobia.
Yes, by all means let us abolish the artificial separation between olympic male and female sports. I personally don’t care one bit, since I don’t have a stake in the game. Career athletes will probably disagree, but fuck them, right?
Or, you know, one could separate athletes into brackets/categories that are better comparable and don’t give certain people a huge advantage over others. Make a separate marathon category for East Africans. Make a separate swimming category for people like Phelps. Make categories for boxing based on strength or performance.
Multiple female skiers have called for a different way of doing things for example, because the shorter courses for women bore them and they aren’t allowed to compete against men.
Make a separate marathon category for East Africans.
Holy fuck…
So, would you agree that if a born male is below the certain testosterone level that the person should compete in women’s category? No one seems to be railing on this but somehow everyone is up in arms when it comes to women’s sports.
Not really. Not a sport physiologist, but the core advantage is due to male puberty. If you prevent male puberty with blockers and afterwards keep male testosteron in low range and/or use the same regimen as in M2F transition these individuals would be better matched in a female competition.
I do love how the people constantly white knighting women by claiming that women who are athletes should be protected from other women who are athletes, but with masculine traits, but when you flip the script and try to suggest that maybe that should apply across the board if that’s how we’re doing things and “feminine” men should play against women, suddenly it’s “no, not like that! Our precious
propertywomen must be protected!”
Which doesn’t matter in any way, shape, or form anyway. The original tweet is making that point. Phelps is a fucking fish mutant and we let him compete as a “man” but a woman somehow must conform to some platonic ideal of a woman to even be considered such.
It’s fucking sexism, and genetics doesn’t factor into it in the slightest.
When you’re a gold medal winning man, you have overcome the obstacles of a normal man to become a superman.
When you’re a gold medal winning woman, you have overcome the obstacles of a normal woman to become a man.
That’s the logic at play.
I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere about this debate. You probably wonder “so what should the rules be to include an athlete for women’s sports? Surely there must be some rule”. This is understandable but please realize that the transphobes who are pushing this aren’t concerned at all with the specifics. They’re not even interested in women’s sports. They want to remove trans women from public life altogether. Not just sports but everywhere. Intimidating trans athletes into obscurity is just their most recent tactic.
So please remember that there is no test that will satisfy the transphobes. There is no fair rule that can be agreed upon, because the transphobes will always keep moving the goalposts. This gets extremely complex. There is no use in debating these people. They will debate forever, because the actual deep down motivation is disgust with trans people.
Save your energy. Don’t debate transphobes.
That’s why transphobes shouldn’t set the rules. And when the rules are set, there will be backlash, which needs to be ignored by the scientific community and the authorities governing professional sport.
This is a tall order, but I do think the question of where the line must be drawn to guarantee fairness is a question worth answering, preferrably not by me, because I don’t have the credentials to deliberate on what’s fair and what isn’t. This is the role of science.
They’re not even interested in women’s sports.
Yes, they are just weaponizing one disadvantaged group against another. Just like how in Portland, they had disabled people sue to remove homeless people from sidewalks (even though majority of homeless are also disabled). Or when churches bringing up abortions of PoC being a “genocide” (which they don’t care about) so they can ban abortion for everyone.
Genetically, he’s been disqualified for swimming due to having a Z chromosome, meaning he’s sexually a fish.
I thought ZZ made you a bird.
We need to settle this, everyone. Is Phelps a bird or a fish? No other options here.
Those guys are assholes. I keep bumping into them mid-air. Have they ever once apologized?
I looked her up again to get caught up on what kind of info wikipedia has updated on her.
I really admire her stance.
Honestly I can’t believe she is so brave to face the world with a stance like that.
Courage.
Alfred Kinsey proved that everyone’s on the vertical-align spectrum.
What stance are we talking about here? I don’t see it indicated on the picture
it’s listed below age
Oh rofl ty
She almost, ALMOST has it!
Just a little bit of mental extension and she’ll realize that this is the same reason trans women should be allowed to play women’s sports as well
I was confused because despite the title suggesting she’s a TERF, this sounds on the face of it like a pretty trans-inclusive statement.
I’m pretty sure she isn’t a TERF, Caroline is a left-wing pop culture/politics streamer.
Also, these TERFs (and other bigots) haven’t seemed to have noticed that women who play sports at a high level like in the Olympics haven’t asked for their protection.
Everyone wants to play sports safely. You don’t need to ask for it.
Yes, we really need to make sure a sport where people punch each other into unconsciousness is safe.
Why didn’t I realize that before?
And yes, people who want protection do have to ask for it.
Regulations in general contradict you. You’re forced to wear a seatbelt whether you asked for it or not, even if you don’t want to. Not sure how that related to trans rights or sports, though.
i think we need a normie olympics, it’d be like the paralympics, but for people randomly selected from the average population.
You should watch Takeshis Castle then. It’s pretty close to normie olympics.
Sometimes athletes go on, but the obstacles are so fucky even they struggle with it.
My kid said just the other day. “they should have an average person do it first so we could see the difference.”
i absolutely agree with your kid, get that kid on marketing stat!
Now I’m thinking which one would be the funniest. Hurdles are definitely up there
Relevant https://m.xkcd.com/2964/
Oh, right! Now I know why the image in my head was so vivid. I actually saw it before
It’s not about protecting women. It’s about attacking women.
There I fixed your conclusion.
I’m so stoked for the future of women rugby. Partially, because it’s a very inclusive sport and it inherits a lot from its lore and ethos - with only a few years left until a woman will referee a high profile test game. And partially, because I want to see the same ferocious generic selection applied to female athletes.
Anyways, give it a go - some really good footy. If you’re absolutely unaware of it, look up highlights of Portia Woodman.
rugby is the sport predisposed to head injuries correct?
That’ll certainly make for an interesting game, regardless of who plays.
Rugby, NFL football, hockey, boxing, and even WWE professional wrestling all have histories of multiple athletes suffering from CTE. Women’s hockey I think will have fewer incidences of CTE due to rule and equipment differences but it’s still early to say. We often didn’t find out about CTE in men’s hockey players until after they died young in retirement.
I have no idea what the rules for women’s rugby are like, if there are any differences. The real issue is a swinging motion of the head (caused by falls or sudden stops), not unlike the way a hammer swings. The movement of the brain inside the skull with sudden stops or changes of direction causes tearing like you’d expect if you swung around a bucket of jello and then slammed it against something.
I try to be cognizant of these things and not support these sports so much, yet they’re in my social circles and I do enjoy them. Every athlete makes their own choice to participate in these sports at the end of the day, though I wonder how informed they are about the risks.
yeah, most sports include increased rates of brain damage, weirdly enough, but to my understanding, as somehow who doesn’t know much about sports, rugby is just football (the american one) but with more contact and less padding afaik. Is that accurate?
I don’t have a problem with people voluntarily giving themselves brain damage, i think, but it’s definitely an odd problem to have.
Rugby has some similarities but is otherwise a completely different sport from American (gridiron) football. American football actually evolved out of rugby, first by the introduction of the snap. This led to the concept of “downs” and the requirement to advance the ball a minimum number of yards (originally 5, now 10) within the allotted number of tackles.
The sport was extremely dangerous at the time because of the way mass formations of players would impact into each other at full speed. More rule changes were needed to make it safer, and the field was made wider to give more room for players to run around the other team instead of ploughing through.
What do you mean by “TERFs”? Caroline Kwan is a leftist, not a TERF.
That’s correct, Caroline Kwan is not a TERF. The TERFs referred to in the title are the ones ‘protecting a very specific idea of what a woman is’
It’s easier to be a man than it is to be a woman, sadly. :/
