Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]

Status
Not open for further replies.
exchemist said:
I can't say I'm surprised or shocked. Of course there will now be huge, and highly tedious, pressure from the trans lobby to amend the legislation: a distraction Parliament could well do without at the present time.

Let the games begin. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Coming soon to Britain:

sheffield-20160324-tweet-mcrory-nc-hb2-bw1.png

Congratulations, you must be so proud.
 
parmalee said:
Another thing here, if we're talking about high school sports especially: Yes, sometimes there are scholarships and suchlike involved, but aren't school sports mostly about giving kids confidence and developing certain skills, maintaining fitness, and all that? It just strikes me as unusually cruel to single out trans kids here. Unfortunately, for a lot of these people, that kinda seems to be the point.
Click to expand...
Yes, as I said this has to be sport focused and individual focused. Case by case.
Fair play is key because if that is removed, it is not sport anymore.
This is why a sportsman on steroids is considered unfair verses a sportsman not on steroids.
Also my example of just one or two years difference in Rugby makes a hell of a difference.

I had a discussion with a trans woman about sports because she was saying some stuff that simply was not true.
I am fan of her show but her premise is wrong which is, if women had the same opportunity in sports as men there would no difference.
That could be another thread on its own but this dilutes the trans arguments.
Men and women ARE different, recognising how different is key in the sports debates regarding the trans community.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Yes, as I said this has to be sport focused and individual focused. Case by case.
Fair play is key because if that is removed, it is not sport anymore.
Click to expand...
One of the things that bothers me over this row is how misplaced conservative anger is over this. I see dozens of posts on Facebook talking about the hideous unfairness of all the trans women competing against women. There are fewer than 100 trans women athletes in the US, so they are hitting more than half of the total incidents of such competitions in the US. And if you read the comments, they clearly consider this to near the top, if not the top, of the list of things that are unfair to women in sports.

Now let's look at other things that might be unfair to those women athletes. There are 35K professional athletes in the US, 520K college athletes and 8 million high school athletes who compete at sports. Of these 8.5 million athletes, women percentages range from 44% (high school) to 12% (professionals.) So there are ~3.5 million women athletes in the US.

There are about 46K gun deaths and 67K serious gun injuries in the US every year; 86% of them are men. There is anecdotal evidence that the firearm death rate in sports is higher than for the average population, but let's assume that the gun injury and death rate in athletes is similar to the general population. That means that 6400 women athletes are killed and 9300 women athletes are seriously injured every year. And being shot in the shoulder is going to be worse for, say, a competitive swimmer than losing to someone whose gender is questionable.

You can, of course, work on both problems. But if 100% of your efforts go to stopping those 100 trans athletes, and 0% of your effort goes towards preventing those 15,700 shootings of athletes - in fact if you oppose any effort to reduce those gun deaths - your priorities are _seriously_ out of whack.
 
exchemist said:
Well, it's one: nil to Rowling: https://www.theguardian.com/society...k-supreme-court-case-over-definition-of-woman

I can't say I'm surprised or shocked. Of course there will now be huge, and highly tedious, pressure from the trans lobby to amend the legislation: a distraction Parliament could well do without at the present time.

Let the games begin. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Mostly "sign-in walled" for me, but these are probably likewise blocked for those in [some] other countries...

What does UK Supreme Court ruling on definition of woman mean?
https://news.stv.tv/politics/what-does-uk-supreme-court-ruling-on-definition-of-woman-mean

INTRO: The terms “woman” and “sex” legally refer to biological woman and biological sex, according to a UK Supreme Court decision handed down on Wednesday. The landmark ruling determined that somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) cannot be legally recognised as a woman for the purposes of the 2010 Equality Act – going against Scottish Government guidance.

The highest court in the land published an 88-page decision(PDF) laying out the judges’ reasoning. Here STV News breaks down what it means... (MORE - details)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

K Rowling reacts to UK Supreme Court's trans women ruling
https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-uk-supreme-court-trans-women-ruling-2060422

INTRO: Harry Potter author JK Rowling has hailed a U.K. Supreme Court ruling that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, saying it has "protected the rights of women and girls" across the country.

"It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK," Rowling, a staunch defender of women's rights, posted on X, formerly Twitter. "@ForWomenScot, I'm so proud to know you." (MORE - details)
_
 
Last edited:
billvon said:
Hmm. So a woman who is born a woman, grows up a woman and competes as a woman - but is XY - what is she?
Click to expand...
One would have to read the detail of the judgement but it seems to talk in terms of biological sex at birth. So I suppose it would depend what was on the birth certificate.

P.S. It should also be noted that the finding of the court was specifically in relation to the provisions of the 2010 Equality Act. It is not a blanket judgement covering all law in England and Wales.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
One would have to read the detail of the judgement but it seems to talk in terms of biological sex at birth.
Click to expand...
But even that definition is tough. In the olden timey days they would put down whatever their presentation was i.e. 0-2 Prader scale would be female, and 4-6 on the scale would be male. Today they might determine it by genome (since that is now often known at 11 weeks) or by presentation.
 
parmalee said:
Nope. I'm done engaging ...
Click to expand...
Good.

When you calm down, think about what you've done here. You've made a sorry spectacle of yourself and you ought to apologise for your despicable behaviour. But you'll need to work that out for yourself.
 
billvon:

A disappointing response from you. No apology from you for trying to imply that I'm a bigot, or that my supposed prejudice is blinding me to anti-trans bigotry (or making me participate in it, allegedly).

You dodged the direct questions I put to you, especially the ones about the personal issues you raised.

Instead, you decided to cite some statistics and such, presumably under the mistaken assumption that I am unaware of such things and that I need you to educate me about them.

But the clincher is this:

billvon said:
Nope. I really don't care what you think about me or my views. And if you automatically assume that anyone disagrees with you is a bigot, then any further discussions will be pointless.
Click to expand...
Okay, billvon. If that's how it's going to be with you, so be it. You don't care what I think about you or your views. It follows that any generosity of spirit I might show towards considering you or your views will be one sided, unreciprocated and probably unappreciated. And, apparently, our past interactions on this forum count for nothing, on your end.

You want to burn bridges? Okay. Consider them burnt.

Do you feel good about yourself, now? Righteous? I hope it turns out to be worth it for you.

As for your mealy-mouthed accusation that I "automatically assume that anybody who disagrees with [me] is a bigot", you ought to know that's false. If you don't, you haven't been paying attention like you should have, and you ought to be doubly ashamed for that.
 
parmalee:
parmalee said:
I shouldn't be surprised when a guy who doesn't see a problem with teaching kids that slavery was beneficial to slaves ...
Click to expand...
What happened to your promise to cease engaging with the pathological liar and all that rhetoric? That promise lasted about 2 posts and here you are back at it.

In your post here, you referenced another post of mine, as if it somehow supports your new lie that I don't see any problem with teaching kids that slavery was beneficial to slaves. Of course, once again, I have never posted any such opinion.

It's one thing if you don't like me. But that does not give you open slather to just make up lies to try to demonise me and misrepresent me.

Just stop it.

parmalee said:
also apparently doesn't have a problem with bullying trans athletes...
Click to expand...
Another lie. I have nowhere advocated for the bullying of trans athletes. Nor have I stated that I support it or "don't have a problem" with it.

Stop telling lies.
 
James R said:
Good.

When you calm down, think about what you've done here. You've made a sorry spectacle of yourself and you ought to apologise for your despicable behaviour. But you'll need to work that out for yourself.
Click to expand...
Lol.

Again:

Go fuck yourself, James.
 
James R said:
In your post here, you referenced another post of mine, as if it somehow supports your new lie that I don't see any problem with teaching kids that slavery was beneficial to slaves. Of course, once again, I have never posted any such opinion.
Click to expand...
James R said:
As a general point, I don't think that teaching anything that is true is necessarily a bad thing. It would follow, therefore, that if slavery had some benefits, I don' t think it should be impermissible to discuss those benefits in a classroom.
Click to expand...
 
billvon said:
One of the things that bothers me over this row is how misplaced conservative anger is over this. I see dozens of posts on Facebook talking about the hideous unfairness of all the trans women competing against women. There are fewer than 100 trans women athletes in the US, so they are hitting more than half of the total incidents of such competitions in the US. And if you read the comments, they clearly consider this to near the top, if not the top, of the list of things that are unfair to women in sports.
Click to expand...
I agree, it has little impact nowhere near the impact of something like GH and such. That is why case by case is the best way.
 
James R said:
you referenced another post of mine, as if it somehow supports your new lie that I don't see any problem with teaching kids that slavery was beneficial to slaves
Click to expand...
No time to say much this week, but I noticed the hypothetical "if" in your post. I agree that in a good faith discussion people should attempt to read all the words. Going forward, I would ask that Parma do so, and cease trying to score points in what appears to be a personal grudge match.
 
TheVat said:
No time to say much this week, but I noticed the hypothetical "if" in your post. I agree that in a good faith discussion people should attempt to read all the words. Going forward, I would ask that Parma do so, and cease trying to score points in what appears to be a personal grudge match.
Click to expand...
Please read the rest of the discussion in the post referenced for fuller context.

Particularly Bells' post #116 and onwards:
Bells said:
If you have some knowledge of DeSantis' anti-woke legislation and what he is doing in Florida, perhaps you could explain why you feigned ignorance?

You seem to be very defensive James. And I don't know why. You made some overly spurious comments that would raise eyebrows, not just for their content, but from what I would now describe as feigned ignorance. You should not accuse me of wasting my time pointing out what you were asking for because you apparently already know this, when you basically asked to see details, because apparently you weren't aware of this.
...
Let's see, I provided you with a link to their curriculum for social studies in Florida. The laws are well reported on.

Or admittedly, you shouldn't have complained about someone describing slavery in the US as being racist and pulled a 'what about-ism' in the process, then feigned ignorance of what was happening in Florida and then queried what any of this has to do with CRT (it has everything to do with CRT and how it is being addressed in many parts of the US).


DeSantis and the Republicans passed 'anti-woke' laws (the Stop Woke Act as it is commonly referred to), which meant that what they deemed to be 'woke' (eg racism, gender) could not be taught or discussed in schools, and the curriculum was changed to essentially erase teaching about racism, systemic racism, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TheVat said:
No time to say much this week, but I noticed the hypothetical "if" in your post. I agree that in a good faith discussion people should attempt to read all the words. Going forward, I would ask that Parma do so, and cease trying to score points in what appears to be a personal grudge match.
Click to expand...
I would also note here that the "if" is not the issue. Slaves learned useful (i.e., "beneficial") things, this is not in dispute. The issue is, why on earth would you volunteer this information? Or, as I said at the time:

"I see it as a bit like saying that a child who is routinely beaten by their parents likely learns some valuable skills about avoiding or evading violence done unto them. It's probably true, sure, but why would anyone bother to point this out other than to diminish the nature and severity of the harm done unto said child?"

For relevance, Rowling says "people who menstruate" and Dave Chappelle says only cis women can bear children. Sure, those things are true, but why say them, especially when it's got fuck-all to do with whatever was being discussed? Point being: the cruelty is the point--it's intended to diminish and denigrate.
 
Last edited:
TheVat said:
No time to say much this week, but I noticed the hypothetical "if" in your post. I agree that in a good faith discussion people should attempt to read all the words. Going forward, I would ask that Parma do so, and cease trying to score points in what appears to be a personal grudge match.
Click to expand...
I will also note that perhaps you should heed your own words here: this has already been covered within the thread. As I stated, the "if" is not the issue. The issue is saying something simply because it is true, even when it has little relevance to what is being discussed.

Edit: Didn't mean to barrage you with three separate posts here--I have a bunch of windows open and was getting distracted.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top