Trans activists failing to persuade people on the sports issue

Quiet, ATM boy.

Mirror gif, Albert, mirror gif.

BTW, I'd just like to point out the absolute absurdity of calling me out for dogwhistling when it was literally in response to me linking to one of the few transpeople that have been successful in US politics and asking people to donate to her.

What's more, I've pointed out that Amaris was spreading lies about a Democrat that originated from an actual alt-right political strategist, the guy who weaponized the CRT issue in politics, to attack someone that has exceptional credentials in supporting trans who was running against a politician, Abbot, that is leading attacks on transpeople including criminalizing gender affirming care and weaponizing child protection services against those parents that try to help their children.

But yeah, this is why I disassociate 'wordforge' from 'reality.'

It's a bit hard for me to believe you guys can get any more ridiculous, but here we are. LOL.

Yes, yes, we know. Beto is a white supremacist and it's good that Abbot won election in Texas on an anti-trans agenda (I'm sure he's thankful for your help, btw), we should all repost tweets from alt-right propagandists if it hurts people we want hurt (which you did), China is the peak example of humanity that we should all aspire to, the US is the source of all evil, and Ukraine is getting what they deserve for talking to NATO.

But sure, lecture us all on human rights for the 100th time.

You clearly are credible on the topic. LOL.

LOL, this coming from a supporter of Xi, of someone who justified Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and was caught red handed posting a nazi propagandist and refused to admit she was morally in the wrong.

You are certainly consistent.

Nice flag, btw. I particularly appreciate the hammer and sickle.

You do know how dog whistles work, right? They're effective because it's not just bigots and assholes consciously using them in bad faith, they're effective because they're also used by well meaning individuals in good faith, because those well meaning individuals are either ignorant of the deeper meaning or consider themselves somehow above it.

I'm not calling you the former, I'm trying to open your eyes to the possibility that you might be the latter. (Or possibly the other way around, I can never remember which is which.)

You'll notice I'm not making these same arguments with UA or FF, because we all know they're arguing in bad faith.

Yes, I do. They are attempts to garner bad faith individuals by using code words. For example, using 'states rights' when you mean 'be openly racist.' That's the classic example of the term, used by right wing politicians since before the Confederacy, and lingering on for decades afterwords.

What you are then implying is that there are then no valid cases to discuss states rights, because someone misused it in the past.

That trying to stop federal overreach using the interstate trade clause means that you can't object to something that is obviously a valid states right issue. A classic example there was whether the Federal government can mandate farmers to grow crops because they could be used for interstate trade, even when the owners of the property have won a state case that say they can let their fields lie fallow when it is to their advantage to do so, such as restoring the soil. Of course that's a valid issue.

You don't get to gatekeep all possible uses because there are some that are misused.

It literally comes down to 'I don't like you saying that.'

I don't want transpeople oppressed, but not playing in a women's league when you went through male puberty I don't believe fits that definition. The fact people on your side mock concerns over 'fairness' and even more so 'women's rights' is problematic to me. You understand that I'm trying to keep a group's rights intact that I believe are being dismissed?

Eh, I think UA has a problem expressing himself sometimes. I don't think he's a bad actor. FF has gone that way as he's clearly trolling at times, but then Wordforge does love to shit on people they disagree with.

I do appreciate you being civil though. I'm still laughing at how triggering it was for some here that I didn't match their presumptions, so they then when straight to cognitive dissonance and numerous personal insults.

It's the Wordforge way.

That's absurd.

You guys are your own worst enemies here. Shouting down any disagreement with such intolerance is more likely to turn people against your more reasonable points than it is to engender agreement.

The "call me a Nazi and I'll become one" argument?
Come on, Rick, you're better than that.

Anyone who is willing to ignore civil rights abuses because someone was mean to them was never an ally, and they've centered allyship on themselves. There are more than enough "moderate white men" who will accept the curtailing of rights for civility and order.

Indeed, like when @Demiurge says "transwomen," or "transpeople." That's a TERF dogwhistle. The term is "trans women," or "trans people," but by combing the word, TERFs give the impression that a trans woman is not an actual woman, but a "transwoman," some kind of hybrid creature that takes on the shape of a woman without being one. That's the kind of thing that gets into mainstream discourse and is internalized.

My Brother in Christ, do you seriously think the people here, myself included, haven't tried to thoughtfully engage those bringing up this topic countless times over the last several years, only to realize most of the people raising the issue were doing so in bad faith and had no interest in real solutions?

That's not the argument. And the immediate recourse to the label 'Nazi' is just another example.

Doesn't make it a good tactic to the ignore the distinction with those who do.

Repeating it won't make it true, wankstain.

And people who think "civil rights" is synonymous with "cater to my every whim" are not to be taken seriously.

Mirror fucking gif.

The part of my post that you quoted is the part where I'm explicitly recognizing that distinction.

No, I think we are getting to the core of it. I've stated this many times but clearly it didn't sink in.

Evidently I'm a Nazi because while I support the right to transition, support the right for transpeople to express themselves and love whoever they want, I support them living their lives free of harassment and hate, and have donated to politicians that I know will express these actions I fervently believe in, I do have one area of disagreement, and it strikes to the core of these people's psyches.

I don't believe that transpeople are identical to the sex they transition to, because medical science says they aren't. Hence if you go through male puberty and later transition you still can have an advantage in sport.

Or even more obvious, if you state you are trans without undergoing medical intervention you aren't in any way biologically similar to your gender identity.

Which is fine, except in very rare circumstance, such as when you would be violating a biological woman's civil right to compete with other biological women. Getting their own leagues and competition took women multiple decades.

Now even then if there weren't advantages gained in some cases I'd drop my objections, because clearly without advantage there is not enough distinction to merit complaint.

And I do think we are working toward that in the future, as I've stated many times, and that's the best outcome here.

But no, I don't think transwomen are identical to women. I believe they fit one of the two aspects of womanhood, gender identity, it's their right to express that, I'm supportive of them doing so through whatever means they believe is appropriate, but it's biological sex that determines advantage in sport, not gender identity. And currently medical science doesn't get them all the way to being identical, though I'm glad it helps many people get to the point that they are far happier with who they are than if that option wasn't available.

And when it truly gets to no difference I'll accept that and be happy for them. Again, even before then I have no objection to transwomen that didn't undergo puberty, as that sudden onset of testosterone flooding the body is what gives males advantages in strength, speed, size and stamina.

But I violate the dogma that there is no difference in any circumstances between someone born biologically a sex and one that undergoes therapy to do the best approximation of that they can of their desired sex. The problem is said dogma doesn't match objective reality, and like all dogmas, break down in those cases.

And that's what makes me a Nazi. I look at objective reality and don't reinforce their gender dysphoria not because I'm rude or contrarian or an asshole, but because there are a couple of areas where I believe that giving them the rights they demand would diminish the rights of others.

By insisting that both were dog-whistling to the far right?

And is that my dogwhistle @14thDoctor ?

The fact that I will openly discuss this, because to justify my position I have to justify NOT taking away civil rights from women? When large numbers of women have openly expressed concern over these civil rights being lost?

Ok then. Once again, I'm completely comfortable in this spot. I'm willing to change my mind if different evidence is presented, and I suspect in my lifetime it will be a non-issue.

No, by pointing out that a dog whistle remains a dog whistle regardless of the intentions of who's blowing it, so it's valuable to educate oneself.

Trans women are women.

You and others seem to have accepted the false premise that the only solutions to the issues raised involve some sort of binary choice between the civil rights of cis women and the civil rights of trans women. That's not the case, but it's what the people dog whistling in bad faith want you to believe.

The very phrase "dog whistle" implies a deliberate act of signalling. So no, it doesn't. And your desire to remove the distinction is quite sinister.

If you want a third open competition I'm all for it. But that's not what is in question here. The question is whether it is appropriate to allow people who underwent puberty as a male to compete with women whose gender identity and biology match, even when there is solid evidence that that means unfair competition, even when women were given their own league to address the competition problems inherent without that distinction.

Trans rights activists won't be happy if you keep trans people from competing in their gender identity class. That's what makes it a binary choice.

You know what's sinister? Your sudden interest in tone policing.