All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[The no face guy]

No, but several primary source documents published in scientific medical and biology journals stating the above facts do.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Saying 'empirical science' a lot does not make something empirical.

I think the fact that he's referring to is that men are stronger than women. Broadly speaking, we have greater muscle mass and can produce more testosterone for greater feats of strength.

That can provide an edge in sports where superiority is defined only by inches. Whether or not it does, with transgender women, I honestly have no idea. But it is a question worth addressing

[shooshoomanjoe]

I am not wrong, I have studies the evidence thoroughly, but I do hope one day you are right, unfortuantely (as I posted from the video) there are consequences to ignoring empirical science, take care.

What's your source? There's plenty of science out there on the effects of estrogen on a male body, trans and cis.

[Kirby101]

So we are arguing about what is fair in a sport that is completely overrun with PEDs?

[Hellion]

There's creating a tangent during a debate, and then there's just starting a whole different book.

Good lord, this one might as well be a new J.K. Rowling novel that it's so transphobic. Please stop.

For the record, the recent Rowling novel that's gotten all the bad press has no transphobia in it. I've read it cover to cover. Transfolk and trans issues are not mentioned at all. The detail that got her critics foaming at the mouth is that once or twice the serial killer character in the novel threw on a wig and woman's coat in order to get close enough to his victim in a dark alley to abduct her. The character is not gay or trans and does not routinely cross-dress. This minor detail was instantly misconstrued by her critics and most of the press, to the extent that when I read the book, I was disappointed that there wasn't actually anything in the text to warrant making a fuss over.

But by all means, let's retroactively label fairy tales as transphobic because a certain Big Bad Wolf also donned feminine garb to catch his prey.

[Tendrin]

For the record, the recent Rowling novel that's gotten all the bad press has no transphobia in it. I've read it cover to cover. Transfolk and trans issues are not mentioned at all. The detail that got her critics foaming at the mouth is that once or twice the serial killer character in the novel threw on a wig and woman's coat in order to get close enough to his victim in a dark alley to abduct her. But by all means, let's retroactively label fairy tales as transphobic because a certain Big Bad Wolf also donned feminine garb to catch his prey.

... uhm.

Yes, I'm sure there can not possibly be a transphobic motive behind Rowling choosing to write about a murderous cross dresser at exactly this moment, no sir.

[The no face guy]

What's your source? There's plenty of science out there on the effects of estrogen on a male body, trans and cis.

Well...

1. First there is the obvious piles of scientific journals published by universities that state that biological sex between men and women affects gender particularly in sports. (Here's a quick summary)

So no, gender is not just a social construct. If you believe that you are a science denier.

https://www.sportsrec.com/6580144/ho...r-athletically

2. Then there are studies that show that trangender male to female athletes (despite sex hormone treatments) still possess a significant advantages over women.

https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/6/395

This study in particular found that trangender men to women (Again despite sex hormone treatment) could retain their muscle man through training which could be rebuilt, and that they can regain their initial biological strength through training despite testosterone reppresents. Small wonder the female MMA fighter got beaten to a bloody pulp so quickly. The are more of these I could dig up.


I am a liberal, pro liberal on most issues that I can think of. but I am not a science denier. Only the far right and left engage in science denial.

Again once you engage in science denial (Ie biological sex does not affect gender) than you are no better than pro Trump Qanon anti vacciers. Anyways I think I've stated my piece, enough politics for me.

[Hellion]

What is there to cannibalize from a body that's already been stripped to the bone? Who is this magical individual so delicious yet so coy that they can't be tempted to join a progressive platform?

If someone is whinging about the fact that reason X is why they aren't joining up with more left-leaning ideology then they were never going to do it in the first place. Being "centrist" in America is more about feeling morally superior over these rubes who argue politics than anything else.

To add I'm not pointing at you specifically with this because your like political ideology seems quite inlined with centrists views, but I've seen what I've described too many times to count.

I don't consider myself morally superior to people who aren't moderates (how many Catholics, or Christians in general, can honestly claim they're not moral superior to anyone?) but I do not find myself attracted to extremes on either side. I'll admit that I agree more or less with most progressive views, most far-left views, but the fact that the far left can and does oppress debate and dissenting opinions just as much as the far right does gives me pause. And of course there are centrists out there who try or would like to silence the vocal extremes, so our hands aren't clean either. But from lived experience, I've seen eye to eye more often with centrists and have been able to have more civil and constructive discussions/debates with moderates.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I am a liberal, pro liberal on most issues that I can think of. but I am not a science denier. Only the far right and left engage in science denial.

Again once you engage in science denial (Ie biological sex does not affect gender) than you are no better than pro Trump Qanon anti vacciers. Anyways I think I've stated my piece, enough politics for me.

Except in the past you've defended Rob Ford, the conservative Canadian Trump and made statements that the neoconservatives in America are fine people. The Progressive Conservative party in Canada is on the right wing side of politics, not the left.

And your arguments ignores the fact that it's not just about science with trans women, it's that they have the right to be accepted as women in society.

[Hellion]

The sad truth is that America, in general, is very right-leaning. Very few of the people in power are like true liberally inclined if you compare it to the rest of the world at large. So I can understand the frustration when a person that could be considered proper liberal is taken down from say a primary etc.

And the UK is its own can of worms that I'm personally not very familiar with so I can't really speak for it at large. I only get my UK politics from Have I Got News For You lol.

Anyway, I will say this if you are an ally and liberally inclined, why do you (and I mean you in a general sense) care that you are being attacked about something? If a person has nothing to hide then surely you'd just let it slide off?

I care when I'm being attacked by lefties because at this point I'm on their side like 99% of the time. I may not agree with every single tenet of the Liberal Ideology or the methods of some of its adherents, but I still vote for Democrats in the important elections and I've always been and will continue to be an ally for oppressed minorities. But rather than being able to respectfully disagree about some points or with some people, I get torn down by people further left than me. This is a problem for the Left and it's a problem for the Right too. And I really don't know how to resolve it other than plea for civility and maybe to throw progressives' embracing of diversity back in their faces?

[The Cool Thatguy]

Except in the past you've defended Rob Ford, the conservative Canadian Trump and made statements that the neoconservatives in America are fine people. The Progressive Conservative party in Canada is on the right wing side of politics, not the left.

And your arguments ignores the fact that it's not just about science with trans women, it's that they have the right to be accepted as women in society.

Arguing that based on science, trans women hold an advantage over those who were born biologically female and thus shouldn't be allowed to compete isn't saying that all trans women aren't women. Its simply recognizing that in one narrow area, they hold an unfair advantage in that field.

We can accept people as a society and still have a regard for science.

[Tendrin]

Still waiting for someone to find me these scarily dominant trans women athletes we need rules to discriminate against.

[Amadeus Arkham]

Legal Eagle on Presidents pardoning themselves and his family

[Hellion]

... uhm.

Yes, I'm sure there can not possibly be a transphobic motive behind Rowling choosing to write about a murderous cross dresser at exactly this moment, no sir.

You're really stretching with that interpretation of the book. Sure, you can make an argument that the move was tone deaf, but she also acknowledges that she based this serial killer off of several real ones from Britain in the 50s and 70s, one of whom would disguise himself in a similar manner to be able to get close enough to nab his victim. Should Rowling have left that detail out of her fictional killer's MO because it would hurt people's feelings? Maybe she should have, I really don't have an opinion. But to claim the novel itself is transphobic or promotes transphobic views is just inaccurate.

[Tendrin]

You're really stretching with that interpretation of the book. Sure, you can make an argument that the move was tone deaf, but she also acknowledges that she based this serial killer off of several real ones from Britain in the 50s and 70s, one of whom would disguise himself in a similar manner to be able to get close enough to nab his victim. Should Rowling have left that detail out of her fictional killer's MO because it would hurt people's feelings? Maybe she should have, I really don't have an opinion. But to claim the novel itself is transphobic or promotes transphobic views is just inaccurate.

It's not really a stretch. The main antagonist is a man who dresses up like a woman to prey on vulnerable women. This is literally the fear that is expressed about trans-women in terf circles sharing public spaces, such as bathrooms, with women. Rowling has spoken about this before. This has to be seen in the context of the atmosphere in which she is writing the book and the author's own statements.

That she can find a thin justification in 'rl serial killers' doesn't really do anything to take away from the fact that we have a woman broadly engaged in transphobia writing a story whose elements act in support of the arguments brought up by TERFs.