Arcangelo

Transgender women (biological men) dominating women's sports

191 posts in this topic

^This is a triumph.

It was about time for a little common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2022 at 4:33 PM, Arcangelo said:

I feel anger and frustration because it is cheating.

I feel anger and frustration because it goes to show that the world has gone mad.

Today I feel at peace.

Thank you Bob!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 4/18/2022 at 5:31 AM, zurew said:

But gender isn't the problem though, but sex is. Gender is an inner image of yourself.

That is why, it can become a mess if we are only focusing on gender and not sex. Social constructions have their own practical consequences. Just because something is a social construct that does not mean, that it need to be abandoned immediately. 

For example, our whole economic system is a social construct. We made a system that we all play along with.

Sex has its own practical categorizational usage, for example when you go to a doctor you won't be treated based on your gender(inner image of yourself) but based on your sex(biological traits).

Sports are based on biology and not on self image. 

The reason for categorising based on sex was to create a more equal playingfield for women.

We can abandon all these categories but then we will need to be aware of some consequences:

  1. There won't be any natural competitions (because anyone can use anything for their transition)
  2. Women will probably compete a lot less because they won't have any chance to be anywhere near the top, they will lose a lot of their sponsors, most women who have had a career as a professional before, will lose her job

Now, i think we can all agree that it will mostly  cause damage for biological women. We can say that sports are tough , reality is unfair so realise that and stay with that. But we are not really consistent with that statement when we are talking about other systems.

For example, if we are talking about economics, in the past you could make a lot of money using your physical strength so men dominated. We didn't stay with that we created new jobs and tools to make physical differences matter a lot less. Right now intellectual difference is a factor, but most intellectual differences can be evened out too in the far future, because of Artificial intelligence and DNA changing. 

So most of the time, we won't just stay with the raw facts of reality, but we want to make reality more equal with creating new systems and tools.

I don't think its good to stay with this black and white thinking that sports are either totally equal or not. Just because no one plays on a totally equal ground that does not automatically mean, that all the factors that are made to make a field more equal should be abandoned.

Most of the arguments about this sport topic is around opportunity vs outcome. I think most of you guys are focusing on the outcome more and not really paying that much attention for the opportunity. ( sports are about winning so who cares who wins and with what tools - focus on outcome vs sports are mostly about winning , but if we make certain categorizations we can give opportunity for people more people to be able to win and more people will feel the need and motivation to compete, because they can think that they have some chance - focusing on the opportunity part)

Sex is a social construct. Its why I hate the way the word gender is used. Because its just another word to describe the same thing that is claimed to be different. Sex is a social construct. If you argue this, then you don't know what a social construct is. I'll give you a clue....language is a social construct. It was "constructed." To aid in socialization.

Edited by Razard86

The same strength, the same level of desire it takes to change your life, is the same strength, the same level of desire it takes to end your life. Notice you are headed towards one or the other. - Razard86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Razard86 I made a clear distinction between sex and gender above, and thats a framework you can use to try to make sense of what i wrote above. Now, you don't need to agree with that framework, but that distinction is practical and it can be important.  You are using language in a reductive way and almost no one use it the way you use it, because nuance and meaning is being lost there . The way you use it, is like this: Everything is a social construct: biology , gender , language, physics  etcetc. If we use the word 'social construct' your way ,then it will lose its meaning and basically won't mean anything, because it can be used to describe any word. 

Try to make sense what i wrote above, with the definitions and meanings that i gave to the word gender and sex.

16 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Because its just another word to describe the same thing that is claimed to be different. 

No its not, I made a clear distinction between the two ,and i provided examples to make it more clear. If you don't want to engage with that framework thats fine, but don't tell me i don't understand what a social construction is, just because you don't want to engage with my framework. 

From an ultimate standpoint, yes it is a social construction, but again i think to use language that way its too reductive.

If we want to have a good faith debate or a conversation we have to use the same set of definitions, because if we don't, then our convo or debate won't even make any sense, because we will be arguing over points that are not even being made by the other person, but by ourselves.

Gender is an inner image of yourself. - An Indian man will have a totally different inner image what a man is (, than a German man. Thats just one example.

Sex is about biological traits -  differences in :reproductive organs, genitals, chromosomes,bone density etc. 

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sex and gender are both social constructs.

Sex is more strongly coupled with reality, hence more useful in daily life for pragmatic purposes. 

Gender is used mostly social situations and only in such situations. 

Edited by Bobby_2021

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Arcangelo said:

Today I feel at peace.

Thank you Bob!

😊❤️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting meta-theoretical analysis of the statement "all trans women are women" (from the philosopher who debated Vaush recently):

TWAW.png

 

I think this shows that the trans-inclusive movement should generally move away from appealing to academic standards of argumentation and simply focus on promoting social acceptance, especially on the language issue, as laymen language is mostly pragmatic anyway.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't think you can equate gender and sex, nor can you mark both as 100% socially constructed. This is just a common progressive mistake. To focus on this part of the game and therefore think that things are 100% socially constructed, when in fact the construction is partial and is something you tend to layer on top of something else. So there are degrees with it. Everything is socially constructed, but in part.

So if gender is mostly socially constructed. Than sex would be partly. (less)

You know this because sex pre dates humans and their social constructions.
You can project sex onto animals, or not, they would still behave, or have traits of their sex.

Even if all humans got extinct and no human were present to observe/project onto it, the rules of sex will still be in the game.
 

 

Edited by Yog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Interesting meta-theoretical analysis of the statement "all trans women are women" (from the philosopher who debated Vaush recently):

TWAW.png

 

I think this shows that the trans-inclusive movement should generally move away from appealing to academic standards of argumentation and simply focus on promoting social acceptance, especially on the language issue, as laymen language is mostly pragmatic anyway.

Good representation. There is no problem with the self Id view, if you define  "woman" like this:

https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/81686-what-is-woman/?do=findComment&comment=1155639

Woman = Male/Female/Intersex person identifying as a female.

This isn't circular. But males can identify as woman, which is what transwoman is.

What do you think @Carl-Richard

 

 

Edited by Bobby_2021

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Woman = Male/Female/Intersex person identifying as a female.

This isn't circular.

What is a woman and what is a female?


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What is a woman and what is a female?

Do we have an academic definition of a woman? It seems impossible not to exclude some woman, when we try to define what a woman is.

I know , i am begging the question, but i just want to point out, that it seems really hard to perfectly define what anything is, without excluding some stuff, that we wouldn't want to exclude otherwise.

I assume, that we don't want to go for a perfect definition, but for a definition that excludes the least amount of things that we would include otherwise.

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

What is a woman and what is a female?

Well first of all the significant question is if language has any inherent meaning. Since you jse language to communicate with me on this forum I am assuming that you think language is meaningful.

Since there are only 

1) finite number of words in the English language.

2) you use words to define and give meaning to other words

We can safely say that language is itself circular. Circular things can still convey meaning. (With a large enough circle of course).

With that said, 

Female is a human with the sex organ vagina and boobies. XX chromosome blah blah... The typical biological definition

It is a socially defined definition, the social circle being a bunch of nerd scientists.

A woman is also a person who identifies with the characteristics of a biological woman. 

For most females, they already identify as women.

But some males also identify as a woman. 

Which means that a woman is anyone who identifies as a female. 

A woman and female are two entirely different things. 

Hence it is meaningfully defined without being too circular. 

Edited by Bobby_2021

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, zurew said:

@Razard86 I made a clear distinction between sex and gender above, and thats a framework you can use to try to make sense of what i wrote above. Now, you don't need to agree with that framework, but that distinction is practical and it can be important.  You are using language in a reductive way and almost no one use it the way you use it, because nuance and meaning is being lost there . The way you use it, is like this: Everything is a social construct: biology , gender , language, physics  etcetc. If we use the word 'social construct' your way ,then it will lose its meaning and basically won't mean anything, because it can be used to describe any word. 

Try to make sense what i wrote above, with the definitions and meanings that i gave to the word gender and sex.

No its not, I made a clear distinction between the two ,and i provided examples to make it more clear. If you don't want to engage with that framework thats fine, but don't tell me i don't understand what a social construction is, just because you don't want to engage with my framework. 

From an ultimate standpoint, yes it is a social construction, but again i think to use language that way its too reductive.

If we want to have a good faith debate or a conversation we have to use the same set of definitions, because if we don't, then our convo or debate won't even make any sense, because we will be arguing over points that are not even being made by the other person, but by ourselves.

Gender is an inner image of yourself. - An Indian man will have a totally different inner image what a man is (, than a German man. Thats just one example.

Sex is about biological traits -  differences in :reproductive organs, genitals, chromosomes,bone density etc. 

Thats the thing there isn't a real distinction between Gender and Sex. I did gender studies in College and I'm like...they could just use the word Sex. All they have to say is that just because someone has designated Sex they don't have to conform to how they express said sexuality. Then they wanted to make a whole new word called gender....I'm like you don't need a new word!!! Just expand the definition of the original word!!! But its just a personal issue I have it is what it is. LOL.


The same strength, the same level of desire it takes to change your life, is the same strength, the same level of desire it takes to end your life. Notice you are headed towards one or the other. - Razard86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

What is a woman and what is a female?

How come nobody asks what's a man? 

 


INFJ-T,ptsd,BPD, autism, anger issues

Cleared out ignore list today. 

..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    I'm just curious, but have they banned certain words associated with trans people, like transexuality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

There is no problem with the self Id view, if you define "woman" like this:

A woman is a person who identifies with the characteristics of a biological woman an adult human female.

My understanding of the self-ID view is that you're a woman if you identify as whatever you think a woman is, which as a general definition (in strict analytical terms) tends towards circularity.

If the definition contains some explicitly defined word that limits what you're able to identify as (like "adult human female"), then it's not self-ID, thus your definition is not the self-ID view.

For example, somebody who calls themselves a woman because they identify with the social roles associated with being a woman, is actually not a woman under your definition, despite self-identifying themselves that way.

The reason people don't care about the self-ID view being circular as a general definition is because, again, they don't care about viewing language that way. They don't approach language in strict analytical terms. They merely use it as a tool, and tools are imperfect. Even analytically consistent definitions are imperfect in their own ways.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Preety_India said:

How come nobody asks what's a man? 

I think it's because women and transwomen generally face more social challenges than men and transmen, so a lot of trans issues tend to naturally revolve around that side of things.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

My understanding of the self-ID view is that you're a woman if you identify as whatever you think a woman is, which as a general definition (in strict analytical terms) tends towards circularity.

A woman is a concept/idea.

You cannot point to a thing and say that's it's a woman or not. 

Just like santa claus. You can identify as a santa Claus simply by wearing a red dress and a beard and you expect people to treat you like a santa claus.

Likewise you can also wear a skirt and people should treat you like a women, regardless of your sex(m or f).

 

A female is an object.

Like a rock or a tree or a house. 

Although normally you cannot identify as a female since, it's a definite object, reality is that even female is a concept, if you dig deep enough. Just like human is also a concept. 

The problem lies in the fact that all of them are social constructs. But there are crucial distinctions even within social constructs.

 

I agree to the fact that they will collapse once you start questioning them, whether they are traditional gender roles or LGBT gender. But if you value that distinction between concept and objects then gender could have some legitimacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Interesting meta-theoretical analysis of the statement "all trans women are women" (from the philosopher who debated Vaush recently):

TWAW.png

 

I think this shows that the trans-inclusive movement should generally move away from appealing to academic standards of argumentation and simply focus on promoting social acceptance, especially on the language issue, as laymen language is mostly pragmatic anyway.

   Nice modal share. I'm also leaning towards trans people shouldn't fully lean on academic language as that can further confuse the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now