The Republican War on Transgender People, Drag Queens, and Queerness in General

[Murphy]

Discussion surrounds a confluence of issues which affect different people in different social domains, but any weaponisation pits intransigence vs age old legal terms which pepole can’t see past. Sport is a reductive argument. The initial post is about the GOP and if any organisation on planet Earth seeks to weaponise an ongoing war on “Transgender People, Drag Queens, and Queerness in General”, it’s the GOP! If you weigh up a possible republican election win next year, the point about sports will become even more surreal

Identity is one of humanity’s more complex focal points yet with the GOP (as bad faith operators first and foremost), rights and the creaking of enforcement parameters may only get more ugly at ground zero. Put another way, when cunts like this are busted in a U-Haul truck on the way to kick off at specific Pride event, you have to be organised at the very least too (Corspey bottom right), ie ‘issues’ the GOP can move to consolidate any policy on

 

[Clinamenic]

Yeah, I get what you're saying but I think this isn't really a high traffic or heavily moderated space so that also effects things.
Padraig has pointed out at length how friends of his are impacted, are directly suffering - polite disagreement doesn't really sit well with me with that in mind.

Totally understandable.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Perhaps we all deserve a palate cleanser: anyone curious about the state of the art of zero-knowledge blockchain technology?

Well I have zero knowledge about blockchain, so arguably I'm a world-class expert on that front.

 

[subvert47]

@subvert47 I imagine a footballer in the situation you've described would probably be in the awkward position of being disadvantaged compared to cis-male players while still having a big advantage over cis-female players.

Trans women would have no chance in men's football, even if they started out as elite players. The effects of hormonal treatment are quite significant, both as regards muscle mass and aerobic capacity. Whether they have any advantage – even a small one, never mind a big one – over cis women cannot be casually assumed either. This is the preserve of sports science, where investigations are continually ongoing. Not sure what the current FIFA rules are.

Anyway, the only trans woman footballer I've heard of is Blair Hamilton, who's a goalkeeper. I'd guess her size helps her there. Dunno how she'd fare as an outfield player. Doubtless there are others. Incidentally, and for what it's worth, Megan Rapinoe is supportive of trans women participating in women's football.

 

[thirdform]

Ummmm I think basically all feminists ever, with a few exceptions, have advocated a combination of (1) cognitive equality, in terms of capacity (2) sociopolitical equality, in terms of opportunity. Maybe three (highly marginalized and controversial) feminists ever have ever argued that male and female bodies are "equal" in the sense of identical capacities. Nobody thinks this! I'm really confused—how is this remotely a gotcha?

I already addressed this. Either as feminists you have to have a universal womens movement (in which case concerns about equality cannot take centre stage) or you can only argue equality for an ever more divided subset. Suppose we just dispensed with the concept of equality outright. Then this would not be a problem at all, because we would not restrict humans of any gender to a bizarre arbitrary standard, and would actually be able to diagnose problems in a materialist way.

And like I've repeatedly said, and I'm not sure why I have to repeat it 20 million times, the terf movement does not see trans women as women because of their genetalia and biology. They are the ones who are forced to argue for an identical capacity in bodies. Otherwise, feminism is by and large just a signal buzzword. It is only trans exclusive feminists who keep the actual core of feminism alive, that is a womens movement qua womens movement. All other feminists have ended up grounding other factors, that of class, race and (dis)ability.

Of course the contortions I have to make to dismantle these points are absurd! I've said as much! Because it isn't an actual issue. There is no mass movement in womens football which is campaigning for trans women to be excluded. And I would wager, of sports in general. It's an issue raised with people who A) have no interest in sports and B) have no qualifications in sports or sports science. WYH is right that when viewed through the lens of republican and tory conservatism, this sporting stuff is silly! So of course it doesn't prove any point at all!

 

[thirdform]

Can we not call ourselves anti-racist and also believe that black-skinned people will do better under intense sun rays than whites?

The question is why on earth you would want to call yourself an anti-racist, unless you're a grifter.

And more pertanently, why do you want to create non-issues?

 

[thirdform]

Well, I should probably resign myself to never understanding, the chances of getting clarity seem low

The more powerful a state and hence the more political a nation, the less inclined it is to explain the general principle governing social ills and to seek out their causes by looking at the principle of the state – i.e., at the actual organization of society of which the state is the active, self-conscious and official expression. Political understanding is just political understanding because its thought does not transcend the limits of politics. The sharper and livelier it is, the more incapable is it of comprehending social problems. The classical period of political understanding is the French Revolution. Far from identifying the principle of the state as the source of social ills, the heroes of the French Revolution held social ills to be the source of political problems. Thus Robespierre regarded great wealth and great poverty as an obstacle to pure democracy. He therefore wished to establish a universal system of Spartan frugality. The principle of politics is the will. The more one-sided – i.e., the more prefect – political understanding is, the more completely it puts its faith in the omnipotence of the will the blinder it is towards the natural and spiritual limitations of the will, the more incapable it becomes of discovering the real source of the evils of society. No further arguments are needed to prove that when the “Prussian" claims that “the political understanding” is destined “to uncover the roots of social want in Germany” he is indulging in vain illusions.

Critical Notes on "The King of Prussia"...

early works of karl marx

www.marxists.org

 

[Clinamenic]

Well I have zero knowledge about blockchain, so arguably I'm a world-class expert on that front.

So you're what we'd call a "normie" which, to be clear, has an especially diminutive connotation in the cryptosphere.

 

[thirdform]

Firstly: as objective facts can't be misogynist, then someone could quite convincingly argue that men have evolved to be misogynists due to objective facts, and hence misogyny as a cultural construct can be justified on biological grounds. In fact this is the modus operandi of a lot of popular evopsych. Needless to say, I unequivocally reject this argument. But logically, it can be made by people who subscribe to the worldview of Benny and co. It's just that they are hamstrung by liberalism, in a way religious conservatives are not.

Go on then @sus tell me why an evolutionary psychologist can't argue this if we're going to use equality and equality of opportunity as the benchmark. Because clearly @Mr. Tea would rather misread the point I'm making to misattribute a false position to me, something his kind are very good at.

and FYI:

Needless to say, I unequivocally reject this argument.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I think gus was actually right that sports, or at least elite adult athletics, are a sidetrack both because it's considerably less clearcut and effects a relatively tiny number of people in comparison to something like access to gender-affirming care, but since it's taken up a lot of space, let's settle it

I have to say, I disagree with nearly everything Benny has to say on this issue, but in this instance he's right. Men are not only bigger than women on average, they also have a bigger proportion of muscle mass compared to bodyweight.

As I said above, do more studies and get more data. Go sport by sport and determine some kind of reasonable standard. Despite athletic performance significantly declining with HRT, it may be that it doesn't decline enough to make it "fair" for trans women who went thru puberty before transitioning to compete against cis women for most or even all sports. It may not. Get the data and see.

There's a precedent for this with intersex women, going back decades. The athletic federation says "your T levels must be under [x number] to compete". Again, idk if T level should be the only factor, but do the studies, get the data, and decide what those factors should be based on the demands of that particular sport.

I'm also fine with putting the onus on proof on people who think trans women should be able to compete, especially when it's a sport involving contact.

The only thing I'm not fine with is a blanket ban that says "none of you can compete no matter what and no one is going to make any attempt to figure out if that's actually fair or not". (I'm also 100% not fine with the implication there that "you're not actually women because I, [x TERF], say so", but that's another matter)

Obviously when it's prepubescent children and tweens, there's absolutely no good or defensible reason to exclude anyone or make rules saying they can only play on teams corresponding to their birth gender.

That's about as reasonable a take as you can have, and it's mostly what athletic federations have tried to do from what I've seen, even if their execution of policy hasn't always been great. And tbh I do think that anyone who make that trans women should just be able to compete at will are doing a disservice to their/my own cause - I'm sure you're well-meaning, but it allows people like @Benny B to come in and attack that one point with a fallacy of composition i.e. "You're wrong about that one thing so therefore you're wrong about everything so therefore trans people don't exist". Which is obviously complete and utter bullshit, but that didn't stop benny from trying to do exactly that upthread.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Trans women would have no chance in men's football, even if they started out as elite players. The effects of hormonal treatment are quite significant, both as regards muscle mass and aerobic capacity. Whether they have any advantage – even a small one, never mind a big one – over cis women cannot be casually assumed either. This is the preserve of sports science, where investigations are continually ongoing.

I think you're perhaps overestimating the effects of hormonal treatment from what I've seen, but other than that I 100% agree with all this. Certainly it's significant enough to make continuing to compete against cis men impossible. And either way yes, let's leave it to sports science to gather the data.

Anecdotally I will say that I've heard from numerous trans women how physically difficult HRT is, and I've specifically heard from people who played sports up to the collegiate level how much their performance and energy levels declined, so I was surprised by what longitudinal studies have said so far but again, let's continue to gather more data.

 

[Benny Bunter]

No one is banned or excluded from participating in sex segregated sport. Everyone is one of the two sexes and allowed to compete in the category that corresponds to them.

 

[thirdform]

As I said above, do more studies and get more data. Go sport by sport and determine some kind of reasonable standard. Despite athletic performance significantly declining with HRT, it may be that it doesn't decline enough to make it "fair" for trans women who went thru puberty before transitioning to compete against cis women for most or even all sports. It may not. Get the data and see.

This is why I mentioned visually impaired football. This is not even a question in that game not because we can't see, but because the game itself has been adapted (no offside rule, shouting voy prior to tackle) etc etc. There is simply no way a blind male team can be played against a cis womens team, and even a mixed team of cis and transwomen. Yet we do not create controversy for this because it would be clearly absurd, and anyone who did create the controversy (take note!) would have no knowledge of the sport as such. Tea can take the micky out of me, idgaf, but all I was trying to illustrated, granted in my own idiosyncratic and convoluted way, is that this is not and has never been a sporting concern. either for cis women or trans women. If people want to use sports as a figleaf for politics, then yes I will rubbish their politics. It's why you guys want me around here, after all.

I admit my response to benny b about tottenham womens team could have been misconstrued, but there I was being satirical more than anything else. I am sure FIFA have their own adaptations and particularities, but because it is rarely on the radio, I simply do not have access to the game in a way sighted people do. Idk why this should exclude me from participating in this thread, or idk why I should be forced to parody a silly, absurd question. Benny didn't even know who Spurs were two weeks ago, yet you all except for Statto, gave him credulity.

I'll concede I could do more research on womens football, but I think that could apply to all of us on this forum.

and again, I am unaware of how bookings work in womens football. They might be more stringently enforced, I dunno. But neither does bigboybennyboyballs. You can only gauge that from watching, and taking an active interest in the sport.

As for boxing, I consider it to be terribly non-aesthetic and would ban it for all humans. Just glorified pub fights. But hey that's my personal opinion, which I am free to hold.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Its interesting to try and distinguish "organic" ground up protests and campaigns from those driven entirely by media hysteria. I guess you could argue that some of the original 2nd wave feminist concerns about the boundaries of what a women is are the former not the latter, maybe. Not sure about that.

I would call those original 2nd wave anti-trans concerns both organic and hysterical. The foundational TERF text is probably Janice Raymond's Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male (you'd I guess forgive that incredibly offensive title a bit since it was 1979, but it's still for sale, along with another recent anti-trans book called Doublethink, on her personal website under that title, so she gets no pass) a dissertation she wrote under Mary Daly, the emblematic TERF if anyone is. It's surprisingly crude and vile stuff. Or perhaps not surprising, since TERF discourse is often crude and vile, as well as deeply cruel.

 

[thirdform]

I would call those original 2nd wave anti-trans concerns both organic and hysterical. The foundational TERF text is probably Janice Raymond's Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male (you'd I guess forgive that incredibly offensive title a bit since it was 1979, but it's still for sale, along with another recent anti-trans book called Doublethink, on her personal website under that title, so she gets no pass) a dissertation she wrote under Mary Daly, the emblematic TERF if anyone is. It's surprisingly crude and vile stuff. Or perhaps not surprising, since TERF discourse is often crude and vile, as well as deeply cruel.

Organic is correct. Even the sex class analysis of Firestone, whilst not terf-y, is problematic and slips into biological idealism and mysticism. But like I've said, crude scientism 'just look at the facts bro' ignoring how those facts are perceived or observed and within what considerations. Tea could really do with reading Kant's critique of Pure Reason.

 

[sus]

I already addressed this. Either as feminists you have to have a universal womens movement (in which case concerns about equality cannot take centre stage) or you can only argue equality for an ever more divided subset. Suppose we just dispensed with the concept of equality outright. Then this would not be a problem at all, because we would not restrict humans of any gender to a bizarre arbitrary standard, and would actually be able to diagnose problems in a materialist way.

We do this already though; all the "fairness" discourse is a red herring/cover-up. We're doing pragmatic typification which is diagnosing problems in a materialist way under the hood.

 

[thirdform]

We do this already though; all the "fairness" discourse is a red herring/cover-up. We're doing pragmatic typification which is diagnosing problems in a materialist way under the hood.

Absolutely correct, which is why terfism is by and large a petit-bourgeois ideology, and because it is the ideology of a class which has no future, and cannot offer a programme but to coat tail the two great historical classes of our epoch, its ideology is equally as self-contradictory and prone to collapsing under its own weight.

 

[thirdform]

which again, is why terf discourse mirrors anti-semitism. Jews are now replaced with 'gender experts, trans lobby, trans activist lobby', etc.

In fact most of these people now talk about healthy parental values, for children, which needless to say is the rootless cosmopolitan trope recycled for the 21st century.

 

[thirdform]

there is a sense in which, as capitalism increasingly develops the capabilities of the social productive forces, its horizons for liberation diminish. Which is why it starts off as quite progressive relatively to feudalism, and as time passes by, becomes increasingly constricted. What the terfs cannot realise is that girlboss is the logical endpoint of womens liberation within a capitalist economy. It can't possibly go any further. But because this would require abandoning the theories they have worked on for decades, they need to find a scapegoat against the power of big capital. enter trans people, now that it can no longer be the Jews, the Blacks or even the Muslims now that it is seen as heinous to admit to being bigotted against these groups in polite liberal society.

(although the bigotry still persists under the hood, as it were.)

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Gotta hand it to this board, some intensely and diametrically opposed viewpoints which are nonetheless willing to engage with each other (with fluctuating levels of sincerity, naturally).

Sorry boss but that that ain't it at all, and I'd thank you not to gloss it over like that, even if you mean well

Danny is 100% right, the anti-trans stuff is completely and totally abhorrent. There are many, many things that I can agree to disagree with someone on, or that we disagree about but isn't important enough to worry about. This is not one of those things. Not at all.

@Benny B and anyone who thinks like him don't think that people I love have the right to exist. That makes him the enemy of people I love. Therefore it makes him my enemy. There is no middle ground here. I don't respect his "opinions", just as he clearly doesn't respect mine or those of anyone who disagrees with him. I don't care about engaging those opinions. I only seek to limit the damage they can do. I don't actively wish physical or any other kind of harm on him or anyone else, but if he was hit and killed by a bus tomorrow I would shed exactly the amount of tears he would for the suffering of people I love: zero.

TERFs are a cancer on the face of the earth.