Gender Vrs Sex

Post Reply New Topic

Biological women who object to the obliteration of the protections afforded them in Title IX related to the sports issues that you mention are apparently referred to as TERFs, which Kara pointed out yesterday:

Wiki: "Feminists with exclusionary views have been referred to as "TERFs" (short for trans-exclusionary radical feminist). They generally object to the acronym and have called it a slur or even hate speech."


It does kind of seem to me that a popular consensus toward women with the belief that the legal protections they receive under Title IX and of which they feel are as important as civil rights, is for such women to shut up, step aside, step down and keep their concerns to themselves. These issues being raised (biological men gender identifying as women and trouncing biological women and girls in sports) transcend ideology and include "conservative", "liberal", feminists and lesbians alike. It's therefore incorrect for someone to label a biological woman who takes issue with this blow to Title IX legal protections and the ramifications and impact this is having on things like female sports as being "conservative", "alt-right", "Republican", etc.

Hardly a blow when trans women will always be a drop in the bucket compared to 50% of humanity. Like I said it's not a fad, people don't choose to have gender ambiguity just to game the system. That's a lie Republicans tell themselves. Self indentification is far more preferable than how it used to be resolved, when a doctor would do surgery on a baby, choose it's gender, then not tell anyone what they did.

You and I disagree with the logic regarding scale. What you're saying is similar to but the reverse of the argument pro-life people use when they argue that all abortion should be illegal regardless of reason. You'll hear them say things like:

"Pregnancy due to rape or incest or ectopic pregnancy may happen, but it's such a small percentage overall that it shouldn't matter."

Life is beautiful at this stage of humanity and living where we do since we are free to disagree.

Let's simplify it: Why do you think sports teams in schools, professional and the Olympics were separated by sex in the first place?

Yes, it's a really messed up issue, all because bias stuck it's ugly head into science and without purpose changed gender identifiers. I just watched a feminist group trying to discuss women's rights and transgenders wouldn't shut up and let them speak, it was either focus specifically on transgender or shut up and sit down. That doesn't appear to be 'equality'.

There is no shortage of information on the subject, transgenders are stomping all over bio women, all you have to do is search. I'ts allowing bio-men to dominate bio-women in all aspects of society. The problem is worse than I expected it to be.

AspE. You are free to think what ever you wish about me, but the truth of the matter is...

I stand for equality, a 'person' should be judged by their skill level that applies to any given subject other than athletic competition. This should clearly be separated by biological sexes because of the evolutionary advantages bio-men have over bio-women in athletic capabilities. I'm against adjusting gender identifiers to aid in blurring the line in bio-men and bio-women because of the obvious complications it causes, bio-men and bio-women are not equal in every aspect, bio-men have advantages over bio-women in many areas and just the same, bio-women have advantages over bio-men in areas. Take multi-tasking as one of hundreds of examples, bio-women have an evolutionary advantage over bio-men in this area. It has been proved to be so. The diversity movement is just as bad as the gender movement, it puts diversity above equality. My personal belief, when it comes to school or jobs, what should be the prime focus is ability, not race nor sex. That is equality.

Furthermore, I disagree with the altering of gender terms because of the ridiculous situation it causes, to the degree that you have to include the word biological every time you want to make the distinction between sex and gender. Women, Man, no longer has meaning because you do not know whether sex or gender is being discussed. It did not improve gender science, it complicated distinction between sex and gender.

Likely a multiplicity of issues, not the least of which would be the Patriarchy just wanting to maintain "separate, but equal" facilities and programs -- which, in practical terms, were neither fully equal nor completely separate, either.

Mixing of the sexes was seen as the first step toward Sin, which was a Really Big Deal back before the contraceptive pill became readily available. Religious institutions had a lot more influence on personal behavior, and feared that if people became caught up in the "pleasures of the flesh" those institutions would lose their income base as more and more people would realize that the sin of adultery did not bring down divine wrath upon them.

Then there was the myth that sexual activity depleted the stamina and strength of athletes, so any contact between the sexes was prohibited while the athletes were in training.

Again, there were lots of reasons why men and women were segregated. Nowadays, the biggest concern seems to be that sharing bathroom space between the sexes will inevitably lead to sexual assault, and that all a man has to do to share a public restroom with a woman is to declare that he identifies as a woman.

Ignorance leads to fear. Fear leads to ignorance. A vicious cycle that must be broken.

Fnord,
"Ignorance leads to fear. Fear leads to ignorance. A vicious cycle that must be broken."

Thats a beautifully worded phrase.

Last edited by Crimadella on 30 Jan 2019, 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's "Fnord". With an "n". Get it right.

Don't get defensive. I'm on a phone, it auto corrected and i missed before submitting, and corrected before I even saw your response, sheesh!

He's still mad the other guy called him Cindarella, so he's taking it out on you "Ford".

I've always wished I could read people's minds.

Actually, I'm big on forgiveness and can discuss things without insults. I will combat insults though. I personally see it childish to lash out with personal insults simply because you disagree with someone.

That reminds me of a (slightly sexist) joke.

Did you photoshop that yourself? That's pretty good. I don't have that ability, I've never used that kind of software before--Microsoft Paint is as sophisticated as my image-creating/altering experience gets.

I got banned for posting that image ( and a few more )