The Republican War on Transgender People, Drag Queens, and Queerness in General

[Mr. Tea]

Actually that makes your argument even worse.
Firstly: as objective facts can't be misogynist, then someone could quite convincingly argue that men have evolved to be misogynists due to objective facts, and hence misogyny as a cultural construct can be justified on biological grounds. In fact this is the modus operandi of a lot of popular evopsych. Needless to say, I unequivocally reject this argument. But logically, it can be made by people who subscribe to the worldview of Benny and co. It's just that they are hamstrung by liberalism, in a way religious conservatives are not.

secondly: no, it's misogynist to claim they are ipso facto inferior and must be protected and segregated in sports. It is not always the case that sports are based on strength and fairness. Like I said, these arguments always have such a reductive sense of sportsmanship and/or sportswomanship.

So making it possible for women to compete in sports is misogyny. Absolutely classic thirdism right there. I'm going to file that next to "Democracy is Stalinism", "Liberals are the real fascists", "Anti-war activism is racist", "The French actually hate cheese", etc. etc. etc.

 

[Clinamenic]

i don't know if that's good though? I find the anti-trans views wilfully blind and abhorrent. I don't think it's some kind of triumph we're sharing a space, more like lax moderation.

I mean more in general, that dissensus members span pretty much across every extremity of the political spectrum, and that such an arrangement somehow hasn't resulted in one ideological group pushing out the others.

 

[Clinamenic]

My point is that its cool that people of your perspective (which personally I'm more sympathetic to in this particular issue) and people of the opposing perspective can not only coexist within the same nook of the internet, but actually keep coming back here for years.

 

[Clinamenic]

On the whole I'd definitely consider it a triumph, a vary rare one. But I also understand the logic of the opinion that, for certain issues, disagreement isn't optimal.

A facile illustrative example would be necrophilia. I likely wouldn't consider it a triumph if Dissensus hosted a wide breadth of perspectives on necrophilia.

 

[thirdform]

So making it possible for women to compete in sports is misogyny. Absolutely classic thirdism right there. I'm going to file that next to "Democracy is Stalinism", "Liberals are the real fascists", "Anti-war activism is racist", "The French actually hate cheese", etc. etc. etc.

Unless you want an entirely separate category for trans sports people (not sure how this could be done in any meaningful way) you have just capitulated to terf theory by going along with benny's ProTecT WoMan. Well done. And yes, liberals are the real fascists if it means they are obsessed with hearing both sides of an argument, at the expense of principle, like you have just done.

I'm not even sure why I even backed you against benny, oh ye of little faith. Was just trying to accelerate the process of him digging his own grave, but evidently you want to act as a break on that.

 

[droid]

'Devestating effects...on the gene pool' sounds eugenicky...use birth control/abortion?? (also eugenicky)

You're the expert. What does your handbook say?

 

[thirdform]

How many of the current Tottenham women's football team (just to pluck a random example out of the air) would make the first team if there were no sex segregated categories?

That's an absurd question you've asked and it clearly shows you have no interest in sports, because it's not a like for like comparison. Tottenham Women are 10th in the wsl, whereas Arsenal women are 4th. If we're going to go on like for like basis, I'd wager that at least 4-5 Arsenal women players have a likely chance of being in the tottenham team (given that Tottenham are fourth in the prem and their form is dipping.)

Stop with these dishonest americanisms you've half digested from the internet because you just look like a clueless weirdo who has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Unless you want an entirely separate category for trans sports people (not sure how this could be done in any meaningful way) you have just capitulated to terf theory. Well done. And yes, liberals are the real fascists if it means they are obsessed with hearing both sides of an argument, at the expense of principle, like you have just done.

Lol, yeah, Mussolini was well known for his pluralistic approach to politics and tolerance of those with different views, wasn't he.

 

[Mr. Tea]

That's an absurd question you've asked and it clearly shows you have no interest in sports, because it's not a like for like comparison. Tottenham Women are 10th in the wsl, whereas Arsenal women are 4th. If we're going to go on like for like basis, I'd wager that at least 4-5 Arsenal women players have a likely chance of being in the tottenham team (given that Tottenham are fourth in the prem and their form is dipping.)

Stop with these dishonest americanisms you've half digested from the internet because you just look like a clueless weirdo who has no idea what he's talking about.

As if the particular team in question makes half a speck of difference to the issue.

 

[sus]

i don't know if that's good though? I find the anti-trans views wilfully blind and abhorrent. I don't think it's some kind of triumph we're sharing a space, more like lax moderation.

It used to be good, when the board was named Dissensus, but now that it's Mvuent's Interior Design board, all non-interior design talk is, I think, wilfully blind and abhorrent

 

[sus]

On a serious note—

DannyL, I find you wilfully blind and abhorrent, no offense though. But everything I've seen you post has displayed close-mindedness and a fear/rejection of the Other in its deepest sense

 

[sus]

Why the Mental Health of Liberal Girls Sank First and Fastest

Evidence for Lukianoff’s reverse CBT hypothesis

jonathanhaidt.substack.com

This has been making real ripples in rationalist and post-rationalist communities due to the ideological split: Rationalist types are pro-CBT, pro-Stoicism, anti-neuroticism. Post-rationalists are anti-CBT, anti-Stoicism, pro-neuroticism. This makes rats enemies of neurotic, emotional teen girls and post-rats natural allies. I think there are interesting ties to Padraig and my's convo last night about info hazards, whether they exist, what they look like. One suggestion of this piece (which you can agree w/ even if you reject its other claims) seems to be that the concept of an info hazard is itself info-hazardous.

 

[Mr. Tea]

@thirdform You seem to be the only person clever enough to have spotted that sex-segregated sports are a misogynistic concept, since I've never heard of anyone else taking this position. Presumably, then, all the female athletes, throughout history and in every country, who are perfectly happy not competing against men, are simply too stupid to have realised how oppressed they are.

 

[thirdform]

As if the particular team in question makes half a speck of difference to the issue.

then why did he name them?

 

[thirdform]

Lol, yeah, Mussolini was well known for his pluralistic approach to politics and tolerance of those with different views, wasn't he.

famously the liberal gialitti government put the returning Italian soldiers under the command of the fasci and thereby enabled Mussolini to consolidate power, so yes, if you cannot even be bothered to do basic historical research, then stop losing your rag.

 

[sus]

A facile illustrative example would be necrophilia. I likely wouldn't consider it a triumph if Dissensus hosted a wide breadth of perspectives on necrophilia.

Really? I think necrophilia is one of the least morally problematic/complicated questions out there. Much easier than incest, certainly. It's a one-party behavior and therefore the damage to society minimal (in a way which agrees with Padraig's rendering of gender affirmative care/teenage transition and why it shouldn't be as regulated as, say, antibiotic prescriptions).

 

[thirdform]

@thirdform You seem to be the only person clever enough to have spotted that sex-segregated sports are a misogynistic concept, since I've never heard of anyone else taking this position. Presumably, then, all the female athletes, throughout history and in every country, who are perfectly happy not competing against men, are simply too stupid to have realised how oppressed they are.

I don't subscribe to that concept though? (Nice little trick learnt from Mussolini's parliamentary career to falsely deflect eh?) I am thankfully not a feminist, and never have been, so I don't need to think with these ideological categories. But logically, according to the radical feminism being advocated in this thread, sex segregation must implicitly lead to misogyny through grounding male biological supremacy.

 

[subvert47]

That's an absurd question you've asked and it clearly shows you have no interest in sports, because it's not a like for like comparison. Tottenham Women are 10th in the wsl, whereas Arsenal women are 4th. If we're going to go on like for like basis, I'd wager that at least 4-5 Arsenal women players have a likely chance of being in the tottenham team (given that Tottenham are fourth in the prem and their form is dipping.)

I doubt any woman in any team in the world would make any top men's team. Or even a Division Two team. The men are much stronger, they kick the ball much harder and the pace of the game is a lot faster. Probably the England U-18 team could beat the women's team. Similarly, if you ask how many of Tottenham's Premiership team would get in their women's team, obviously every single one of them.

But the pertinent question is how many of the Tottenham men would get in if they'd been on female hormones for 18 months. The answer there is rather less clear. They'd be bigger but have a severely reduced muscle mass to carry it. Do they have an advantage or a disadvantage?

I'd guess that bulk still counts for something in football in that you'd be much harder to push off the ball. But I'm just guessing. This is why there is sports science and why each sport makes its own rules, rather than just going with simplistic "men" ruining women's sports bullshit.

 

[boxedjoy]

would just like to say that, if trans athletes were to have some kind of "advantage" in sports due to biology, I wouldn't actually have any issue with that, given the hurdles that trans people face for simply existing. If they can find a safe space to develop their sport, people to work with them, etc then it's more than likely they've done more work than a cis athlete of similar ability, and sports is mental resilience and psychological strength as much as it is about physical capability

 

[thirdform]

I doubt any woman in any team in the world would make any top men's team. Or even a Division Two team. The men are much stronger, they kick the ball much harder and the pace of the game is a lot faster. Probably the England U-18 team could beat the women's team. Similarly, if you ask how many of Tottenham's Premiership team would get in their women's team, obviously every single one of them.

right, but none of these things indicate unfairness, just a disadvantage. and disadvantages are always there in football. It's how mens teams beat other mens teams, after all. If we are to go on merit, then it is quite possible that certain individual Arsenal women players are better than Tottenham women players. In fact, as an Arsenal fan, I would argue this to be the case, but the point is not worth belabouring. The fact is, the Tottenhams womens team is in a worse position in the equivalent competition for men. So picking a random team does not make the case benny thinks it does.

In fact, so that @Mr. Tea can hang his head in shame, why didn't benny ask this for visually impaired players, where the game is self-evidently played at a much, much slower pace to both mens and womens football? Literally none of us have any issue with arguing we are at a disadvantage, and neither is it turned into some political point scoring. and again, I doubt most trans women are arguing to be plopped straight into mens teams. Quite the contrary in fact. Neither do I see a mass outrage from cis women athletes about this.

But the pertinent question is how many of the Tottenham men would get in if they'd been on female hormones for 18 months. The answer there is rather less clear. They'd be bigger but have a severely reduced muscle mass to carry it. Do they have an advantage or a disadvantage?

I'd guess that bulk still counts for something in football in that you'd be much harder to push off the ball. But I'm just guessing. This is why there is sports science and why each sport makes its own rules, rather than just going with simplistic "men" ruining women's sports bullshit.

Of course, but the modern terf argument does not even call men on female hormones defective women or effeminate women (like the classic religious transphobia.) It denies that they have anything to do with womanhood at all!