pride vs rte (1 Viewer)

Deadmanposting

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,612
You don't seem that interested in listening to the ones that are cool with trans people
I'm honestly trying to read everything that comes out on the subject.

I read Una at the weekend, partly because my sister sent it to me.

I read Jennifer O'Connell's piece called

Manufactured outrage dominated RTÉ discussion on trans issues

broadly in defense of the trans community in Ireland, and good for her
It ended with this

But gender identity is complex and not well understood. Contrary to what the black-and-white tone of so much public discourse suggests, most of us do not arrive at every emerging social issue fully evolved. Away from the testy arguments about bathrooms and prisons and women’s sport, there are many decent people with good intentions trying to figure things out. If we are to stop the race to the fringes on every contentious social issue, we need more nuanced discussion, not less.

I couldn't agree with her more.

There is a way that everyone involved moves forward - because we all have to live together ultimately - and it doesn't involve the noisiest people on either side yelling hate and accusations at each other.
 

Unicron

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
18,570
Solutions
2
Location
Near Cybertron
Website
theformersovietreublic.bandcamp.com
I'm honestly trying to read everything that comes out on the subject.

I read Una at the weekend, partly because my sister sent it to me.

I read Jennifer O'Connell's piece called

Manufactured outrage dominated RTÉ discussion on trans issues

broadly in defense of the trans community in Ireland, and good for her
It ended with this



I couldn't agree with her more.

There is a way that everyone involved moves forward - because we all have to live together ultimately - and it doesn't involve the noisiest people on either side yelling hate and accusations at each other.
Ok that's fair enough. My previous post was.probably a bit dickish.
 

ann post

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2002
Messages
25,282
Solutions
1
Location
Internment Explorer sp3
bear in mind (imagines picture of bear, residing in brain fucking up nests and stuff).

While this will be teased out in conversations

repeal and marriage equality were super slow burn fuses waiting to go off.

this is all fresh confusion with well versed ghouls a low contact with the topic.

we all knew a person who'd had an abortion, we all new some cool gays, trans kids gfto from rural asap, and live in tight safe communities in cities. the parameters are not the same. the information gap filling is vital
 

Unicron

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
18,570
Solutions
2
Location
Near Cybertron
Website
theformersovietreublic.bandcamp.com
.

we all knew a person who'd had an abortion, we all new some cool gays, trans kids gfto from rural asap, and live in tight safe communities in cities. the parameters are not the same. the information gap filling is vital

Thus is a good point. Never mind kids, someone around my age I vaguely know from repeal around here in kildare recently came out in the past few months, or at least in the last few months came out on Facebook where I saw it. Facebook tells me she's currently in portland or somewhere like that. I don't know if if it's an extended holiday or if it is home now.
 

rettucs

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
24,436
Solutions
2
Location
Post of the week winner: 22nd March, 2013
bear in mind (imagines picture of bear, residing in brain fucking up nests and stuff).

While this will be teased out in conversations

repeal and marriage equality were super slow burn fuses waiting to go off.

this is all fresh confusion with well versed ghouls a low contact with the topic.

we all knew a person who'd had an abortion, we all new some cool gays, trans kids gfto from rural asap, and live in tight safe communities in cities. the parameters are not the same. the information gap filling is vital
the problem is that the information gap becomes a battlefield with competing entities trying to fill it with information that suits their agenda.

I think the most worrying thing about this debate is that some of the anti-trans positions are very nuanced and actually want to come across as supporting trans, but NIMBY kind of thing.

At least when you're dealing with out-and-out bigots there isn't much mystery about what you're dealing with.
 

YoungHearts

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
511
Location
Dublin, Mayo
Website
www.youngheartsrunfree.ie
I’m genuinely curious (as in this is not a trick question or an excuse for an argument) but what are the biological realities as you view them? And what was understood at the time as the biological reality when the texts were written versus what we know now? For that matter, what was the understanding of transgenderism/transexuality?
Hello @Cornu Ammonis -

I wouldn’t imagine (hope) anyone on here would ever be trying to pose trick questions, so don’t worry about that! But I think the biological realities for the female sex are quite obvious and have been used, one way or another, against us, over history (and still, now) - but they ARE realities, this is a massive crux of the discourse. There are so many elements, but I am not going to restate most of them, as I live with them every day. And then there are things that I don't live with, such as FGM, for example, but which are carried out because of a cultural/religious belief, and on the basis that someone is of the female sex.

There are so many effects of being of the female sex, some hidden, some not - from period products tax, to our health not being taken seriously (the way heart attacks present in women and men are different, for example, and this idea of men as a general default patient has been catastrophic for women - Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez is a brilliant book that details some of this), but also the way society treats us - with some contempt - a thread that can be followed throughout history, and because of our sex, and biological reality, which is clearly very different to the male sex. There are horrible power dynamics at play as well.

I am not even going to get into transgenderism/transsexuality, because that is not my lived experience (although my law thesis was on this issue - and its relationship to legislation and potential conflicts, many years ago). However, being of the female sex IS my lived experience and reality, and honestly, not much has changed in terms of those biological realities and the effects of that - no matter the time period. This is part of my point. The misogyny is rampant, and doesn't look to be going away any time soon; from policing our bodies, to earning less money, to disrespecting us, objectifying us, from rape culture, male patterned violence, to the cervical check scandal (to bring it back locally), the list goes on. All of these things are in some way linked to the biological realities attached to being of the female sex.

I am not looking to argue with anyone, and this isn’t a slight towards you at all! - but I am thinking about a more general discourse that seems to be happening the last few years. I find it very difficult to navigate. I have been a feminist since I was a teenager, when the reality of being a girl and then woman started dawning on me. I wanted to find coping mechanisms, and feminist texts emboldened me, and helped me understand, and to seek freedom amid those biological realities and the way society worked in light of that. It was a positive turning point. My feminism seeks to centre girls and women, dismantle gender roles, and the expectations attached because of our sex - but it doesn't seek to eradicate the reality that is biology and the female sex, because it's a fundamental thing, and so many things flow from that reality. And that should also be respected, and reflected in language, in law, in life.

I really follow Orwell’s assertion that “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows”. And that’s how I feel. I have a million other little nuances about this to write down, but this is too long a post anyway, and I think it’s time to absent myself from this thread as it’s been a strange one, and the discourse generally does get me down (can you imagine if I was on Twitter? I'd be kicked off within the hour!) but it has also been massively instructive to see some of the thoughts, so thanks everyone and I wish you all well :).
 

nuke terrorist

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
3,650
Location
'north munster'
Hello @Cornu Ammonis -

I wouldn’t imagine (hope) anyone on here would ever be trying to pose trick questions, so don’t worry about that! But I think the biological realities for the female sex are quite obvious and have been used, one way or another, against us, over history (and still, now) - but they ARE realities, this is a massive crux of the discourse. There are so many elements, but I am not going to restate most of them, as I live with them every day. And then there are things that I don't live with, such as FGM, for example, but which are carried out because of a cultural/religious belief, and on the basis that someone is of the female sex.

There are so many effects of being of the female sex, some hidden, some not - from period products tax, to our health not being taken seriously (the way heart attacks present in women and men are different, for example, and this idea of men as a general default patient has been catastrophic for women - Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez is a brilliant book that details some of this), but also the way society treats us - with some contempt - a thread that can be followed throughout history, and because of our sex, and biological reality, which is clearly very different to the male sex. There are horrible power dynamics at play as well.

I am not even going to get into transgenderism/transsexuality, because that is not my lived experience (although my law thesis was on this issue - and its relationship to legislation and potential conflicts, many years ago). However, being of the female sex IS my lived experience and reality, and honestly, not much has changed in terms of those biological realities and the effects of that - no matter the time period. This is part of my point. The misogyny is rampant, and doesn't look to be going away any time soon; from policing our bodies, to earning less money, to disrespecting us, objectifying us, from rape culture, male patterned violence, to the cervical check scandal (to bring it back locally), the list goes on. All of these things are in some way linked to the biological realities attached to being of the female sex.

I am not looking to argue with anyone, and this isn’t a slight towards you at all! - but I am thinking about a more general discourse that seems to be happening the last few years. I find it very difficult to navigate. I have been a feminist since I was a teenager, when the reality of being a girl and then woman started dawning on me. I wanted to find coping mechanisms, and feminist texts emboldened me, and helped me understand, and to seek freedom amid those biological realities and the way society worked in light of that. It was a positive turning point. My feminism seeks to centre girls and women, dismantle gender roles, and the expectations attached because of our sex - but it doesn't seek to eradicate the reality that is biology and the female sex, because it's a fundamental thing, and so many things flow from that reality. And that should also be respected, and reflected in language, in law, in life.

I really follow Orwell’s assertion that “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows”. And that’s how I feel. I have a million other little nuances about this to write down, but this is too long a post anyway, and I think it’s time to absent myself from this thread as it’s been a strange one, and the discourse generally does get me down (can you imagine if I was on Twitter? I'd be kicked off within the hour!) but it has also been massively instructive to see some of the thoughts, so thanks everyone and I wish you all well :).
thanks for being so open YoungHearts.

I am not on twitter and like Liveline, I don't know what's being said on there. I don't why people bother with either platform.

I think up until teenage years the gap between girls and boys is much smaller but discrimination becomes steadily worse in teenage years and women are at a huge disadvantage as adults.
 

Unicron

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
18,570
Solutions
2
Location
Near Cybertron
Website
theformersovietreublic.bandcamp.com
Thought this was an interesting piece on the trans-women in sport issue.



I don't know what the nitty gritty details of the right solution is but I don't think it's an outright ban.

And I don't pretend to understand the science but I do know it's more complicated then what many of the people who are going "go with the science" say, it is more complex than "if you're born with a penis you're a dued/if you're born with a vagina then you're a woman" or even the more sciencey sounding "xx-= dude, xy=bird."
 

egg_

nerd/hippy
Supporter
Since 1999
Joined
Nov 15, 1999
Messages
12,633
Location
Where dogs wear hats and birds fly backwards
As far as I can tell that article acknowledges that people who have undergone male puberty have physical advantages when it comes to sports compared to people who haven't, but that shouldn't be the deciding factor when it comes to admitting people to women's sports because that's not fair on trans people.

Does the sport thing simply boil down to "including trans women isn't fair to non-trans women" versus "excluding trans women isn't fair to trans women"? And then all the ins-and-outs are about finding particular sports where maybe male puberty isn't such a big obvious advantage, and saying it's probably ok for trans women to compete in those?
 

Deadmanposting

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,612
Nadine Dorries is a politician, and a Tory politician. So she recognises a wedge issue when she sees one.
There is no open-minded or open-hearted reasoning coming from her on this, or anything.
She is seeking advancement for her career.
I have little to no interest in her views on the subject, other than they might become law. She's a prick.

Like Egg says, the reason we have the division in mens and womens sports in the first place is the incredible muscular and skeletal advantage men get at puberty.
We have these divisions for fairness.
When FINA brought in their revised regulations recently, it was based on nothing more than this fundamental fairness. They had input from trans athletes and activists and all other stakeholders.

Humans have an innate understanding of natural justice. Watching Lia Thomas wipe the floor with a bunch of girls that have worked their heart out to be there strikes most reasonable people as unfair. I honestly think you'd have to fight a cognitive dissonance to see it otherwise.


Trans rights is a nuanced and tricky issue that we still need understanding and definition on
BUT these obviously unfair practices give space for pricks like Dorries and far worse pricks to get in and wedge the whole thing with their unkind and selfish shit.
We are better listening to Martina Navratilova and Sonia O'Sullivan on these things - kind women with a deep undertsanding of women's sports.

We give ground to hateful people when we let unfair stuff happen.
Or I think anyways.
 

rettucs

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
24,436
Solutions
2
Location
Post of the week winner: 22nd March, 2013
As far as I can tell that article acknowledges that people who have undergone male puberty have physical advantages when it comes to sports compared to people who haven't, but that shouldn't be the deciding factor when it comes to admitting people to women's sports because that's not fair on trans people.

Does the sport thing simply boil down to "including trans women isn't fair to non-trans women" versus "excluding trans women isn't fair to trans women"? And then all the ins-and-outs are about finding particular sports where maybe male puberty isn't such a big obvious advantage, and saying it's probably ok for trans women to compete in those?

on, 'finding particular sports', see


then have a look at some of her competitors. All off their heads on testosterone.

This is why the trans athletes in 'female' sports debate is a nonsense. Sport cannot be considered in binary terms anymore. Not since Caster Semenya, and likely not before that either.

I think there are bigger issues for the trans community. While sport is certainly an issue, it's a little down the pecking order in terms of rights that need to be prioritised. The problem is that 'some' are using it to advance their nazi agenda as if it's inflicting the worst injustice on people.
 

egg_

nerd/hippy
Supporter
Since 1999
Joined
Nov 15, 1999
Messages
12,633
Location
Where dogs wear hats and birds fly backwards
then have a look at some of her competitors. All off their heads on testosterone.

This is why the trans athletes in 'female' sports debate is a nonsense. Sport cannot be considered in binary terms anymore. Not since Caster Semenya, and likely not before that either.
I don't really get what you're proposing as an alternative. No "special" categories in sports at all? Or more special categories defined by stuff like testosterone concentration and, I dunno, maybe weight classes like in boxing? I suppose that'd only apply to elite sports if it's the latter, local GAA teams are hardly gonna start measuring testosterone to decide who plays on the ladies team
 

rettucs

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
24,436
Solutions
2
Location
Post of the week winner: 22nd March, 2013
I don't really get what you're proposing as an alternative. No "special" categories in sports at all? Or more special categories defined by stuff like testosterone concentration and, I dunno, maybe weight classes like in boxing? I suppose that'd only apply to elite sports if it's the latter, local GAA teams are hardly gonna start measuring testosterone to decide who plays on the ladies team
I'm saying its just sport and we shouldn't allow it to detract from the more serious issues.

But to your question, see


in particular the last 2 questions on page 3.

i have a lot of respect for Ross Tucker. I don't agree with everything he says, but when he talks in purely scientific terms, its hard to dispute what he says.

(that whole interview is interesting. A lot of the origin of 'categories' is purely tradition. Weight categories within gender, etc. There's nothing to say they can't be changed but its unlikely to ever happen).
 

Unicron

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
18,570
Solutions
2
Location
Near Cybertron
Website
theformersovietreublic.bandcamp.com
As far as I can tell that article acknowledges that people who have undergone male puberty have physical advantages when it comes to sports compared to people who haven't, but that shouldn't be the deciding factor when it comes to admitting people to women's sports because that's not fair on trans people.

Does the sport thing simply boil down to "including trans women isn't fair to non-trans women" versus "excluding trans women isn't fair to trans women"? And then all the ins-and-outs are about finding particular sports where maybe male puberty isn't such a big obvious advantage, and saying it's probably ok for trans women to compete in those?

There's a bit more to it than that. By undergoing transition trans-women do lose some of those advantages and in some cases the act of transition is physically debilitating in itself. Transitioning isn't going to chop a few inches off someone's height but it can for example lead to their body becoming underpowered in relation to how they previously were, but they still have to move that larger body around which eats up more energy than it had before. This certainly would be a factor in endurance sports.

Humans have an innate understanding of natural justice. Watching Lia Thomas wipe the floor with a bunch of girls that have worked their heart out to be there strikes most reasonable people as unfair. I honestly think you'd have to fight a cognitive dissonance to see it otherwise.

At the same time the Lia Thomas image was of her winning one race, she had mediocre finishes in the other 2 events she competed in. She's a good college swimmer but nowhere close to doing anything on the international stage (certainly not since FINA have banned her and other transwomen). The picture of her would naturally hit you in the gut, and trigger the idea, "this isn't fair" but there's a wider truth and context that goes beyond one photograph.

And there was a photo of the 2 women she beat on the podium looking pissed off that's been doing the rounds. Apparently they've subsequently said that the image isn't entirely representative of what they thing.
 

nuke terrorist

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
3,650
Location
'north munster'
never heard of Lia Thomas until now.
sounds like the Lia Thomas debate has been hijacked by the hard right and transphobes.

didn't know Dr. Ross Tucker either but read interview and it was a very good primer. on biological issues I would trust what he said. some of the equality for all / moral side of it might be up for debate.

I see Tucker who is South African testified in Caster Semenya's CAS hearing and disagreed with the CAS decision banning her from the 800 m. respect to him for that.

the first trans woman athlete I heard of was Canadian down hill mountain biker Michelle Dumaresq.
after she won the national champs in 2006 she got transphobic abuse from the runner up on the podium and her supporters in the crowd.
I heard about this after the runner up was sanctioned and issued a full apology.

to be honest my reaction to this event for years afterwards was - why was Dumaresq allowed compete in the first place? but about 2016 I realised this wasn't an open and shut issue and that trans women deserved a chance but there's no guarantees for them.

EDITS: fixed several minor typos
 
Last edited:

rettucs

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
24,436
Solutions
2
Location
Post of the week winner: 22nd March, 2013
never heard of Lia Thomas until now.
sounds like the Lia Thomas debate has been hijacked by the hard right and transphobes.

didn't know Dr. Ross Tucker either but read interview and it was a very good primer. on biological issues I would trust what he said. some of the equality for all / moral side of it might be up for debate.

I see Tucker who is South African testified in Caster Semenya's CAS hearing and disagreed with the CAS decision banning her from the 800 m. respect to him for that.

the first trans woman athlete I heard of was Canadian down hill mountain biker Michelle Dumaresq.
after she won the national champs in 2006 she got transphobic abuse from the runner up on the podium and her supporters in the crowd.
I heard about this after the runner up was sanctioned and issued a full apology.

to be honest my reaction to this event for years afterwards was - why was Dumaresq allowed compete in the first place? but about 2016 I realised this wasn't an open and shut issue and that trans women deserved a chance but there's no guarantees for them.

EDITS: fixed several minor typos
Look for Tucker's TED Talk. It was great. I went to a lecture he gave in UCD a few years ago. He came here at the invitation of Ger Gilroy to debate that british journalist, Matthew Syed, who was a total mouthpiece for Team Sky but Syed never turned up. So he just gave a couple of general lectures instead and they were fascinating.

He was front and centre of doping-in-cycling debates during the Sky scandal. I'd highly recommend looking for some of his articles. Very detailed and very scientific in parts, but highly understandable.
 

therealjohnny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
35,328
Solutions
3
Look for Tucker's TED Talk. It was great. I went to a lecture he gave in UCD a few years ago. He came here at the invitation of Ger Gilroy to debate that british journalist, Matthew Syed, who was a total mouthpiece for Team Sky but Syed never turned up. So he just gave a couple of general lectures instead and they were fascinating.

He was front and centre of doping-in-cycling debates during the Sky scandal. I'd highly recommend looking for some of his articles. Very detailed and very scientific in parts, but highly understandable.
Reading this with wide eyes and jaw on the floor thinking you were talking about Tucker Carlson
 

Users who are viewing this thread

21 Day Calendar

Lightning Bolt
Whelans
25 Wexford St, Portobello, Dublin 2, D02 H527, Ireland
Panikatax, Chimers (Australia), Fierce Shook, Carpark Sci-fi
Bello Bar
1 Portobello Harbour, Saint Kevin's, Dublin, Ireland

Latest Activity

Loading…

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads... If we had any... Which we don't right now.

Upgrade now

Latest posts

Trending Threads

Latest threads

Top