This is you. This is literally always you. You do it all the time. You just insist that it's not "being upset" even though it is. It always is. You're constantly bothered by innocuous bullshit like this.
Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs
- Start date
Dude, I will be blunt. My roomie's mother is ex-Navy and I would bet money that she could absolutely take you in a fight.
That's true but in sports we're talking like for like. Trained and skilled athletes vs trained and skilled athletes. I can't lift close to what a 100kg female weightlifter can but I'm not as trained as they are. I'm also not a genetic freakshow like athletes at the top of their games. In recreational sports sure there are a lot of women who can compete with men.
But I already gave the huge differences in weights lifted by women in the 59kg and 64kg weight classes compared to men in the 61kg weight class (the male gold medalist lifted 77kg more than the women's gold medalist in both weight classes). Similarly, in the 100m the three medalists were all between 9.8 and 9.9 seconds for the men and 10.6 and 10.8 for the women. The women's gold medalist wouldn't have even qualified to compete in the men's 100m because the qualifying time was 10.05 seconds which is nearly half a second faster than any woman has ever run a 100m in the history of the Olympics. Yes among the mosh mash of us unimpressive mortals the range of differences isn't that great but top class athletes are a combination of genetic freaks of nature and highly skilled.
I'm not sure what you believe this question is getting at.
We divide up chickens (and all livestock) according to genitalia. So if you applied the same metric to people, that would mean GRS does indeed change the biological sex.
You believe people who've had GRS have no sex at all?
Do you apply the same rank prejudice towards infertile people, or people born with irregular sexual characteristics?
Well, now we are getting to the problem of using the term biological sex instead of sex that's assigned at birth
Eg. A lot of these states are pretending assigned at birth sex is the same as biological sex. The sex on your birth certificate is not necessarily your biological sex. It's just what the doctor gave you by looking at your genetalia at birth with no further investigations. This seems like the worst way to seperate a sporting league
Conservatives use these interchangeablely and thus inappropriately sometimes. They are two different but not mutually exclusive things. What is written on your birth certificate is NOT your biological sex
Anyway, biological sex is based on gametes. Thus, bunch of people don't qualify as either biological sex. You can be born without eggs or ability to make sper.. Then you have transpeople who, as an end goal, (currently) don't produce gametes either
Note: gametes have nothing to do with sports performance. Hence me thinking it's really stupid basing sports competition on whether you can produce gametes or not
So, I don't agree with your biological sex assessment here. You're talking about morphological sex. You will never here about this from transphobes. It's an automatic loss for them. That's why they focus on biological sex exclusively. They're just trying to control the narrative.
And things like sports performance isn't related to your genetalia either. Even basing your league criteria on this is stupid. Nor is your assigned sex. This is just a ploy by some to confuse the issue
Absolutely zero fucking self awareness
I don't see anything prejudiced about it. The sexual dichotomy is required for human reproduction, but there are certainly people who aren't able to participate in that system. It's hardly a strict binary for the whole species, it's a binary for reproduction.
The ability to reproduce has never been a requirement in order for someone to classify as male or female in sex. Not in animals, not in humans. This is why we don't consider someone who's infertile, or someone who has passed the menopause, to no longer have a sex-- because that would be both grotesquely dehumanising and scientifically illiterate.
What "people" were the 1st ones to be upset by something innocuous? I wouldn't have said a thing if there wasn't the original complainer.
And...? What kind of argument is that? What is the point of being so disingenious with your arguments?
Yeah, the best WNBA player can beat me at basketball too but can they beat the best male basketball player in their same weight?
Why is it so hard for people to admit certain facts? It's not even something to be argued. If sports were divided up by weight and women had to compete against men, they would be dominated.
Just saying your male biological advantages aren't worth as much as you think they are.
I think it is grossly dehumanizing that you find that grossly dehumanizing, as though sex is somehow the determining factor in being human.
yes, sure, sex doesn't exist until puberty
that's not what dehumanization is about.
Too be clear, if we say "nobody complained, organizations did it on their own to be inclusive", do you think we're going to stop making fun of you for getting bent out of shape over "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women", given that girls aren't women?
Sure. You want to classify people who cannot reproduce as being no longer male or female, but I'm the one being dehumanising.
Since you didn't get it the first time, you are suggesting that not being male or female makes someone less human. You are in the wrong here.
No, I'm not suggesting that, obviously.
You have chosen to fundamentally connect sex to the ability to reproduce (against both the scientific and the culturally-accepted definitions). In doing so, you've denigrated people who aren't able to reproduce.
The denigration doesn't come from associating them with intersex/ people without a sex. The denigration comes from your denial of their identity based on their lack of a specific function.
Denial of identity is dehumanising, yes.