New Zealand

[JohnD]

It's all very well arguing over what a woman is, or if somebody doesn't know what a woman is, but that really is not what this is about.

I think it is.

The question is, should somebody that has had the genetic and hormonal advantages of being a man during their formative athletic years be allowed to compete as a woman, knowing that they have a biological advantage resulting from the years, or in this case, decades, of being a man.

Some campaigners maintain that TWAW, and that any person who says "I am a woman" is therefore entitled to all the protections, rights and qualifications of a woman.

If this is so, any such person is a woman and is therefore entitled to compete as such. Lifestyle, body mass, hormones and genitals are irrelevant.

If they are a woman, they are also entitled to strip naked in womens changing rooms and demand bikini-waxing in a women-only parlour or join a women-only club.

This argument is only tenable if you maintain that there is in reality no such thing as a woman.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Nonsense.

I have said that a "woman" is an adult human female.

What do you think a "woman" is?

I agree with your definition.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Surely it is a lot easier than is being made out.

If this athlete is now a trans-woman or transgender woman (whatever the term) then, by definition, that is something different than a (for want of a better word) standard 'woman'. Ergo the person is not 'a woman', so should not be allowed to compete in the same competitions with women.

Can't compete - tough - that's life.


However, that is not how the (English speaking) world works nowadays.

Something strange is going on. Does anyone know who is in charge and instigating all this nonsense.

 

[JohnD]

Does anyone know who is in charge and instigating all this nonsense.

Trans Activists.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

It's all very well arguing over what a woman is, or if somebody doesn't know what a woman is, but that really is not what this is about.

The question is, should somebody that has had the genetic and hormonal advantages of being a man during their formative athletic years be allowed to compete as a woman, knowing that they have a biological advantage resulting from the years, or in this case, decades, of being a man.

Maybe the real reason there are not many transgender women competing in sport is just because

1. relatively few people compete in sport
2. those that do may be turning their back on their masculine side, so don't want to do athletics
3. those that do still love athletics just don't feel it would be fair for them to compete - I am sure at least one transgender woman has said this, can't remember who though.

It may be the degrading tests that are required to compete as a female that dissuades females (and transgenders) from competing.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Some campaigners maintain that TWAW, and that any person who says "I am a woman" is therefore entitled to all the protections, rights and qualifications of a woman.
If this is so, any such person is a woman and is therefore entitled to compete as such.

That is not evidently not correct. There are medical tests to be performed in order to compete as a woman.
You know this, so please don't assert incorrect claims.

 

[JohnD]

That is not evidently not correct. There are medical tests to be performed in order to compete as a woman.
You know this, so please don't assert incorrect claims.

you are attacking words that are not the words I wrote.

You know that, so please don't post false attacks.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Surely it is a lot easier than is being made out.

If this athlete is now a trans-woman or transgender woman (whatever the term) then, by definition, that is something different than a (for want of a better word) standard 'woman'. Ergo the person is not 'a woman', so should not be allowed to compete in the same competitions with women.

Can't compete - tough - that's life.

If sex is binary, that's fine and logical, but sex isn't binary. I've presented several scientific papers to support that opinion.
Antagonists have presented nada, nil, zilch to support their opinion.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

you are attacking words that are not the words I wrote.

You know that, so please don't post false attacks.

You clearly said:

Some campaigners maintain that TWAW, and that any person who says "I am a woman" is therefore entitled to all the protections, rights and qualifications of a woman.
If this is so, any such person is a woman and is therefore entitled to compete as such.

That is blatantly incorrect. You know it is.
There are medical tests.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Trans Activists.

Yes, in this example.

However I read that St Paul's Girls' School is to scrap the term 'head girl' because of its binary connotations.

If they are not 'girls' then presumably they won't be at the school.


Surely the people in charge of the school must be reasonably intelligent.

 

[JohnD]

You clearly said:

That is blatantly incorrect. You know it is.
There are medical tests.

oh bobby, you are silly. Even your lies are unconvincing.

Show me the words "athletes" "compete" and "olympics" in my words.

Are you a member of Stonewall?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Yes, in this example.

However I read that St Paul's Girls' School is to scrap the term 'head girl' because of its binary connotations.

If they are not 'girls' then presumably they won't be at the school.


Surely the people in charge of the school must be reasonably intelligent.

I think you are twisting the story to suit your narrative:

said its main reason for phasing out the “head girl” title was because many of their students feel that they are young women rather than girls.
A school spokesperson told the Standard that the change was suggested by “senior students” at the school who felt that “head of school” would be “more modern, age appropriate and inclusive” than “head girl”.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/06/22/st-pauls-girls-school-hammersmith-london-head-girl-non-binary/​

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

oh bobby, you are silly. Even your lies are unconvincing.

Show me the words "athletes" "compete" and "olympics" in my words.

The thread is about the athlete competing in the Olympics. Remember?

Some campaigners maintain that TWAW, and that any person who says "I am a woman" is therefore entitled to all the protections, rights and qualifications of a woman.
If this is so, any such person is a woman and is therefore entitled to compete as such.

It was in that context that my comment was made. That was obvious by me reminding you that medical tests were required.
If you meant 'compete' outside of the context of the discussion in this thread, you ought to have made that clear.

 

[JohnD]

It was in that context that my comment was made.

you chose to ignore the words I wrote, and insert different words of your own into your head, with a different meaning

which you then attacked.

what medical tests does M&S require before a Trans goes into the Ladies Lingerie changing rooms?

If a trans woman who doesn’t have a GRC wants to access a female-only space, and is refused access, that’s not discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, but discrimination on grounds of sex.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

you chose to ignore the words I wrote, and insert different words of your own into your head, with a different meaning

which you then attacked.

what medical tests does M&S require before a Trans goes into the Ladies Lingerie changing rooms?

You said 'compete' There is no competing in the M&S Ladies Lingerie changing rooms.
The thread is very clearly about an athlete competing in the Olympics.
If you meant 'compete' outside of that context, you ought to have made your intended context clear and unambiguous.
I inserted no words of my own in quoting your comment.