mudsticks
Squire
Claude never actually said there was.
Like her, i think they're really quite a useful flagging device.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Claude never actually said there was.
Like her, i think they're really quite a useful flagging device.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
Are they?
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
I favour Brutus shirts if I'm honest.
mudsticks
Squire
Yeah , can be .
A bit of a cliché really like the old "leather patches on jackets" thing, but still, it can be a marker amongst other stuff.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
Interesting.
mudsticks
Squire
Only very mildly so
Isn't the word bigotry trotted out a bit too often for these contentious issues? And the suffix phobic. It's not bigotry to make factual claims or give reasoned argumentation for a position you hold on this. In turn you allow others to mount an argument against your own position.
AuroraSaab
Squire
That quote is from a moderator on another cycling forum. They are clearly using their own stance in the issue to shut down legitimate debate. Presumably there can be no discussion of trans cyclists Emily Bridges eligibility because that means 'refusing to accept their preferred gender'.
The whole point of using language like 'bigotry' and 'transphobic' is to shut down discussion. Noone wants to be thought to be unkind so they don't speak out even when they know what is being said is nonsense. It's how we have ended up where we are.
The whole point of using language like 'bigotry' and 'transphobic' is to shut down discussion. Noone wants to be thought to be unkind so they don't speak out even when they know what is being said is nonsense. It's how we have ended up where we are.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
It's possible to refer to Emily Bridges as 'she' and then discuss the unfairness in her competing in female categories.
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
It's possible to refer to Emily Bridges as 'she' and then discuss the appropriateness of her competing in any particular racing category.
icowden
Legendary Member
And this is the problem. Silencing one side of a discussion is never good or healthy. The zeal for "no platforming" at Universities is really quite abhorrent. They are supposed to be places to learn. You cannot learn if you only have one side of an argument.
AuroraSaab
Squire
It's possible, and people can refer to Emily Bridges as such if they wish, but compelling people to do so is demanding that they take part in an ideology to which they do not subscribe.
The moderator doesn't mention pronouns though. They talk about 'accepting their preferred gender', ie sex. It's possible to refer to any trans identifying male as 'she' out of politeness and still know they are male. The moderator is actually demanding that you accept that trans identifying men are women. That's an unscientific ideology-based stance intended only to make discussion of the issue all but impossible.
And the appropriateness, or otherwise, is based on whether it is fair to women cyclists because fairness is the bedrock of competitive sport.
There are no credible, high quality studies that support the inclusion of men in the women's category in (most) sports on the grounds of fairness. There are more than a dozen that show unfairness, ie. a retained male advantage even after lowering testosterone.
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
You can't discuss it properly if you've already decided it's unfair. That was my point. It may or may not be, I'm not expressing a view on that, but to phrase it as 'discussing the unfairness' is begging the question and is itself not a fair way to go about things.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Competitive sport hinges on fairness. The categories within sport, whether it's weight, sex, or age, are there to provide opportunities for fair competition within those categories. Otherwise athletic 25 year old males would win everything. 'Fairness' has been the default paramount criteria for 100 years. (Safety being assumed obviously).
By suggesting that we should talk about 'appropriateness' rather than 'fairness' I think you yourself are making a judgement that other stuff, like inclusivity perhaps, should be considered.
If you want something other than fairness to be the main criteria for competitive sport you need to make that argument. For the vast majority of people, including men in the female category will quite rightly always be a discussion about unfairness to women.
By suggesting that we should talk about 'appropriateness' rather than 'fairness' I think you yourself are making a judgement that other stuff, like inclusivity perhaps, should be considered.
If you want something other than fairness to be the main criteria for competitive sport you need to make that argument. For the vast majority of people, including men in the female category will quite rightly always be a discussion about unfairness to women.
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
Fine, so you make the case that appropriateness includes fairness. That can be discussed and debated. But you don't take 'discussion of unfairness' as a starting point. By doing that you're already introducing bias.
You know I'm simply trying to suggest that we use language which is fair to everyone, right? I'm not giving an opinion on the actual sporting and competitive side of things.
