> I’m shocked! I thought “your gender is what you say it is.” I thought “no one can tell you your gender.” How can an anti-hate task force call into question a person’s right to identify as they see fit?
This is pretty much the entire "security flaw" in the stated algorithm that's been promoted with increasing fervor the last two decades.
The exploit being that it allows me, at 6'3" and 270 lbs, with a foot long beard, to say "I'm a woman" and *according to their own rules*, they have to accept that.
"Well, you're not even making any sort of attempt to *look* like a woman!"
"Are you policing my appearance? How hateful of you."
Etc.
There's no limiting principle at all. And I'm significantly more liberal (in the linguistic sense of the term) than most people about the use of the word "Woman". I'll go back to the 2014 standard if they will. You remember, back when the leftist crowd was still acknowledging a distinction between gender and sex?
Because despite that us old fashioned types use the now legacy term "Women's Sports", according to the Gender Crowd, what we always *really* meant was "Female Sports". Because nobody cared about the "gender expression" of the players. The entire purpose of creating Title IX and the subdivision it birthed, the entire purpose was to provide a space where humans with relatively typical XX sex chromosome expression could compete against one another on a somewhat level playing field.
Everybody knows it. It doesn't matter if I like wearing dresses and makeup, I'm a *dude*. Even if I got an orchiectomy and penectomy, I'd *still* be a dude, right down to every cell in my body, stamped indelibly with "XY" like an Old West cattle brand.
So, sure. Transwomen are women. But they're still *male* in their source code.
No, this cannot be genewashed away by the existence of the vanishingly small number of people who were born with a genuine intersexed condition and some sort of chromosomal abnormality. Everyone -- even the people pretending *very* loudly not to -- understands the basic distinction between "male" and "female".
Would I have any particular objections to my coworker A. -- returning triumphantly and to much fanfare and adulation to work today after her three month absence getting her bottom surgery done -- playing in a women's sports league? Not at all. Because she's 5'5" and 105 lbs soaking wet. Even if she were to return to running, which is something she competed in back when she was a he, in high school. Because apparently she lost something like 5 inches of height as her pelvis reshaped under sustained hormonal onslaught. Though I suppose that leaves her arms and legs just as long as they were before, so perhaps that'd be even *more* of a cheat code.
Would I have an objection to the Warmek of thirty years ago, 6'4" back then before all of the cartilage degradation, at 19 years old, declaring myself a woman, and competing in Women's Rugby, with no surgeries or hormone alterations or anything? Yes. Yes I would. Because it would be a slaughter. Because, frankly, it would be *dangerous* to the other players.
So, what is a woman? Where's the line? There's a couple of options. One is to use the line that's been in use for hundreds of millions of years across the vast majority of species that have ever lived on this planet, and tie it to the physical reality of an entity which matches the description "female". Another is to use what is apparently the current leftist position and state that there simply *isn't* one, and accept that any individual who declares herself a woman to be one. There could be a line placed somewhere in the middle, and say that a person has to be taking hormones, or have had surgery, or something else. Frankly, that's the one I tend to go with at the social level. Anyone who has put as much effort into it as my friends A. or L., spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money on hormones and frighteningly invasive surgeries, and making significant effort to always appear and act like honestly fairly traditional and "stereotypical" women, I'll happily and easily use their preferred terminology and regular English pronouns and refer to them as women.
Some guy with five o'clock shadow, a baritone voice, an obviously male skeletal layout, a prominent adam's apple, and a full package under his dress... not so much.
As for women's sports, just leave it to the females, and those who have gone all the way to the end of what modern medical technology can achieve. The claim that transwomen *need* to be allowed to compete in female sporting competitions because they just want to play sports is a logical fallacy. They're still perfectly able to complete. In the *male* sporting leagues. In fact, so far as I'm aware, there are no rules against regular XX players competing in those leagues, if they can keep up.
So much of the leftist strategy relies on changing the definition of words. If you can't agree on what words mean, you can't have an honest debate. And this is exactly the point.
Another strategy is to insist that no matter how small the "oppressed" group is, it's rights should be prioritized over the majority. Trans, addicts, etc.
Everyone deserves the same rights, but if you're tiny minority, then you have to adapt to the world the rest of us live in, not the other way around.
> So much of the leftist strategy relies on changing the definition of words.
I've noticed.
"It’s amazing how much of leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible."
Which sure, it's very avant-garde to reject semiotics entirely, but it makes actual communication entirely impossible, and reduces the species back to the savanna, some six million years ago, when we were still pure animals. I suppose the notion wouldn't bother a leftist so much.
Humor is good. Thank you!
It is often hard to distinguish between humor and sarcasm. I was going for a bit of both.
Given the WNBA's position on this subject - and the subject itself - it's hard to write about it and take it serious.
Glad you enjoyed it.
> My solution would be to give them all sticks, replace the basketball with a puck, and make them play on ice, but as a Canadian I may be biased.
Jeez. Making baskets with *that* sort of equipment sounds **REALLY** hard. And slam dunks would require Olympic Figure Skating levels of prowess.
> I’m shocked! I thought “your gender is what you say it is.” I thought “no one can tell you your gender.” How can an anti-hate task force call into question a person’s right to identify as they see fit?
This is pretty much the entire "security flaw" in the stated algorithm that's been promoted with increasing fervor the last two decades.
The exploit being that it allows me, at 6'3" and 270 lbs, with a foot long beard, to say "I'm a woman" and *according to their own rules*, they have to accept that.
"Well, you're not even making any sort of attempt to *look* like a woman!"
"Are you policing my appearance? How hateful of you."
Etc.
There's no limiting principle at all. And I'm significantly more liberal (in the linguistic sense of the term) than most people about the use of the word "Woman". I'll go back to the 2014 standard if they will. You remember, back when the leftist crowd was still acknowledging a distinction between gender and sex?
Because despite that us old fashioned types use the now legacy term "Women's Sports", according to the Gender Crowd, what we always *really* meant was "Female Sports". Because nobody cared about the "gender expression" of the players. The entire purpose of creating Title IX and the subdivision it birthed, the entire purpose was to provide a space where humans with relatively typical XX sex chromosome expression could compete against one another on a somewhat level playing field.
Everybody knows it. It doesn't matter if I like wearing dresses and makeup, I'm a *dude*. Even if I got an orchiectomy and penectomy, I'd *still* be a dude, right down to every cell in my body, stamped indelibly with "XY" like an Old West cattle brand.
So, sure. Transwomen are women. But they're still *male* in their source code.
No, this cannot be genewashed away by the existence of the vanishingly small number of people who were born with a genuine intersexed condition and some sort of chromosomal abnormality. Everyone -- even the people pretending *very* loudly not to -- understands the basic distinction between "male" and "female".
Would I have any particular objections to my coworker A. -- returning triumphantly and to much fanfare and adulation to work today after her three month absence getting her bottom surgery done -- playing in a women's sports league? Not at all. Because she's 5'5" and 105 lbs soaking wet. Even if she were to return to running, which is something she competed in back when she was a he, in high school. Because apparently she lost something like 5 inches of height as her pelvis reshaped under sustained hormonal onslaught. Though I suppose that leaves her arms and legs just as long as they were before, so perhaps that'd be even *more* of a cheat code.
Would I have an objection to the Warmek of thirty years ago, 6'4" back then before all of the cartilage degradation, at 19 years old, declaring myself a woman, and competing in Women's Rugby, with no surgeries or hormone alterations or anything? Yes. Yes I would. Because it would be a slaughter. Because, frankly, it would be *dangerous* to the other players.
So, what is a woman? Where's the line? There's a couple of options. One is to use the line that's been in use for hundreds of millions of years across the vast majority of species that have ever lived on this planet, and tie it to the physical reality of an entity which matches the description "female". Another is to use what is apparently the current leftist position and state that there simply *isn't* one, and accept that any individual who declares herself a woman to be one. There could be a line placed somewhere in the middle, and say that a person has to be taking hormones, or have had surgery, or something else. Frankly, that's the one I tend to go with at the social level. Anyone who has put as much effort into it as my friends A. or L., spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money on hormones and frighteningly invasive surgeries, and making significant effort to always appear and act like honestly fairly traditional and "stereotypical" women, I'll happily and easily use their preferred terminology and regular English pronouns and refer to them as women.
Some guy with five o'clock shadow, a baritone voice, an obviously male skeletal layout, a prominent adam's apple, and a full package under his dress... not so much.
As for women's sports, just leave it to the females, and those who have gone all the way to the end of what modern medical technology can achieve. The claim that transwomen *need* to be allowed to compete in female sporting competitions because they just want to play sports is a logical fallacy. They're still perfectly able to complete. In the *male* sporting leagues. In fact, so far as I'm aware, there are no rules against regular XX players competing in those leagues, if they can keep up.
So much of the leftist strategy relies on changing the definition of words. If you can't agree on what words mean, you can't have an honest debate. And this is exactly the point.
Another strategy is to insist that no matter how small the "oppressed" group is, it's rights should be prioritized over the majority. Trans, addicts, etc.
Everyone deserves the same rights, but if you're tiny minority, then you have to adapt to the world the rest of us live in, not the other way around.
> So much of the leftist strategy relies on changing the definition of words.
I've noticed.
"It’s amazing how much of leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible."
Which sure, it's very avant-garde to reject semiotics entirely, but it makes actual communication entirely impossible, and reduces the species back to the savanna, some six million years ago, when we were still pure animals. I suppose the notion wouldn't bother a leftist so much.
And to flip that on its head, "The Smallest Minority is the Individual". And they *despise* **actual** individualism.
Yes, good point.
Then we get Feminist Olympics.
And women quit sporting...
Men already get annoyed at women soccer as women soccer players ever look more like men.
But they don't have to look at every soccer game do they. Why are some men such brainwashed soccer junkies?
Its one big mess...
GET FREUD, BERNAYS AND THEIR SOCKPUPPETS OUT OF OUR LIVES