The trans debate

[Max B Gold]

At the risk of over-simplifying things, would the following be an okay-ish summary of the debate so far:

Keefboard Warriams – what the Trans rights movement is arguing is nonsense at a fundamental intellectual and philosophical level, contradicts a body of scientific evidence and undermines the hard-won rights of others.

Professor Buckfast – Yeah, but that’s just an extreme minority.

Keefboard Warriams – erm, no, it’s pretty much all the big players in the movement (names the likes of Stonewall and others).

Professor Buckfast – Okay, but what’s the harm really? Let’s just show some humanity and go along with what they want. Otherwise, all we’re doing is providing ammunition and support to some genuinely nasty people and creating an atmosphere of hostility to Trans people.

Keefboard Warriams – Because it’s not about just being nice to someone, which in itself is understandable. The movement is trying to influence public policy and law based on a belief system that is contradictory to a substantial body of available evidence and intellectual thought. That's never a good basis for policy or law.

Professor Buckfast – It was just a WUM. Gotta dash – game day!

The clues were all there. The initial hook.OFFISMS like "must dash", "gone off on one" and the Partridges "tadger", "its all very confusing" were all there in plain site.

Not to mention the illogicality of my replies and the refusal to listen or read up on it which are Off traits.

Introducing the Postie was MB Gold because CEB displayed his transphobic hand by constantly insisting that I LIKED her a lot. Implicit in that statement is that there is something morally wrong with that and he used it to demean me in some way.

Anyway, must dash - nurse has summoned me.

I take my hat off to you. You played the role of a blazing ignoramus without the first clue of what you’re talking about to perfection, and you absolutely had me convinced that you have the debating skills of Mat R***r, 100%.
Just disappointed we didn’t have the version of this discussion where you do the boring, conventional thing of setting out your actual arguments and seeing whether it stands up to scrutiny. Ah well.

Many thanks. I have put the OFF hat back in the play box. Apologies for disappointing you but it was too good an opportunity to pass up.

[CEB]

Haven’t seen anyone deal with scrutiny this poorly since Prince Andrew

[Max B Gold]

Haven’t seen anyone deal with scrutiny this poorly since Prince Andrew

I'm sensing you don't really like being WUM'D.

[CEB]

Not at all, I’m happy to be WUMmed. I’m just rather unsure where the WUM is in you putting forth poor quality arguments in order to demonstrate that I respond to bad arguments by having increasing confidence that I’m dealing with a fool. Especially when at the end it turns out that you do actually take issue with my position, but apparently you have just decided not to do so with your actual arguments, which would no doubt refute my positions on this issue.

I think I called it right at the start when I said it was a bit early to be drinking. I mean, I did say “I’m up for discussing this if you engage in good faith” so, er… your ‘WUM” amounts to “lol I wasn’t really discussing it in good faith! I was deliberately saying stupid things”

You do at least have the good grace to seem a bit embarrassed at your reverse ferret after having your arse handed to you, I’ll give you that.

“LOL! I’ve goaded you into… articulating your position on a live political discussion, and you’ve typed out things you think!! Not like me! I typed out things I don’t actually think, but I still think you’re wrong, I’m just a wee bit too busy to go into specifics as to why”

Baffling.

[Max B Gold]

Not at all, I’m happy to be WUMmed. I’m just rather unsure where the WUM is in you putting forth poor quality arguments in order to demonstrate that I respond to bad arguments by having increasing confidence that I’m dealing with a fool. Especially when at the end it turns out that you do actually take issue with my position, but apparently you have just decided not to do so with your actual arguments, which would no doubt refute my positions on this issue.

I think I called it right at the start when I said it was a bit early to be drinking. I mean, I did say “I’m up for discussing this if you engage in good faith” so, er… your ‘WUM” amounts to “lol I wasn’t really discussing it in good faith! I was deliberately saying stupid things”

You do at least have the good grace to seem a bit embarrassed at your reverse ferret after having your arse handed to you, I’ll give you that.

“LOL! I’ve goaded you into… articulating your position on a live political discussion, and you’ve typed out things you think!! Not like me! I typed out things I don’t actually think, but I still think you’re wrong, I’m just a wee bit too busy to go into specifics as to why”

Baffling.

You're still not getting it are you?

[CEB]

I absolutely confess that I really am not getting it.

Though admittedly, the sheer preponderance of responses you’ve had to your WUM saying “LOL you really got him there!!” and “wow, classic boarding from MB Gold!” Are definitely making me think that you have indeed implemented a world class wind up, and I’m just waaaaaay too stupid to see it.

[Beradogs]

This is why this debate is so delicious. Woke eating woke. Just like JK Rowling the arch feminist and the trans lobby. They come after their own eventually. It’s the nature of the beast… carry on chaps..

[CEB]

I’m not sure MB Gold is fully awake, let alone woke

[Dunners]

This is why this debate is so delicious. Woke eating woke. Just like JK Rowling the arch feminist and the trans lobby. They come after their own eventually. It’s the nature of the beast… carry on chaps..

This is what I meant by my earlier comment that the whole thing is batsh*t crazy. I admit to taking some voyeuristic pleasure in sitting back and watching the rival factions just go at each other with absolute no awareness of how they are perceived by most people. Which is why I also can't help wondering if the whole situation was engineered deliberately.

[Max B Gold]

I absolutely confess that I really am not getting it.

Though admittedly, the sheer preponderance of responses you’ve had to your WUM saying “LOL you really got him there!!” and “wow, classic boarding from MB Gold!” Are definitely making me think that you have indeed implemented a world class wind up, and I’m just waaaaaay too stupid to see it.

I wouldn't say stupid. That isn't right. Too arrogant to concede you have been outwitted is probably better.

[Max B Gold]

This is why this debate is so delicious. Woke eating woke. Just like JK Rowling the arch feminist and the trans lobby. They come after their own eventually. It’s the nature of the beast… carry on chaps..

This is what I meant by my earlier comment that the whole thing is batsh*t crazy. I admit to taking some voyeuristic pleasure in sitting back and watching the rival factions just go at each other with absolute no awareness of how they are perceived by most people. Which is why I also can't help wondering if the whole situation was engineered deliberately.

It was.

[CEB]

I would say that those who are opposed to trans activism know how it looks to discuss it - it sounds absolutely batshit, and it’s impossible not to have to use framing that sounds like “LOL it’s PC gone mad!!!” when saying stuff like “trans organisations want to erase the concept of sex in law”, Itheres main reason I’m informed on the subject is because I couldn’t embarrass myself by arguing the points I’m arguing unless I knew I was on solid footing) It’s definitely frustrating having to unpick very crazy things to ultimately restate that sex exists, is politically important and matters.

I’m all seriousness though, seeing the impact of this bullshit on young people with mental health issues is why I discuss what is pretty much a taboo subject as openly as possible.

[CEB]

I absolutely confess that I really am not getting it.

Though admittedly, the sheer preponderance of responses you’ve had to your WUM saying “LOL you really got him there!!” and “wow, classic boarding from MB Gold!” Are definitely making me think that you have indeed implemented a world class wind up, and I’m just waaaaaay too stupid to see it.

I wouldn't say stupid. That isn't right. Too arrogant to concede you have been outwitted is probably better.

Outwitted is a creative way to summarise what, by your own explanation, was apparently you deliberately engineering losing a debate in order to prove….(any ideas?)
But you’re honestly about ten times more tedious than I remember you being, and you were plenty tedious even back then, so I’m afraid you’ll have to enjoy this…er…. glorious victory over me…. as I’m not going to bother with your nonsense here any further

[Max B Gold]

I absolutely confess that I really am not getting it.

Though admittedly, the sheer preponderance of responses you’ve had to your WUM saying “LOL you really got him there!!” and “wow, classic boarding from MB Gold!” Are definitely making me think that you have indeed implemented a world class wind up, and I’m just waaaaaay too stupid to see it.

I wouldn't say stupid. That isn't right. Too arrogant to concede you have been outwitted is probably better.

Outwitted is a creative way to summarise what, by your own explanation, was apparently you deliberately engineering losing a debate in order to prove….(any ideas?)
But you’re honestly about ten times more tedious than I remember you being, and you were plenty tedious even back then, so I’m afraid you’ll have to enjoy this…er…. glorious victory over me…. as I’m not going to bother with your nonsense here any further

Yessss I win

[greyhound]

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/hospital-told ... 20976.html

the world gone NUTS.

[CEB]

Congratulations to Lia Thomas. I can only imagine the amount of training and effort and hard work that went into going from the 775th fastest male swimmer to the fastest female swimmer. So brave, blazing a trail for trans rights. Takes real balls to do that in the face of blatant transphobia

[Long slender neck]

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/hospital-told ... 20976.html

the world gone NUTS.

Just one problem caused when we're told to start denying reality.

[CEB]

H/T Ross Tucker on Twitter re: Lia Thomas

The Lia Thomas result last night is pretty straightforward - confirmation of hypothesis. Based on the physiology, it was predictable that a male athlete with sufficient base level athleticism would suppress T, retain enough physiological advantage & thus performance, to win (1/_
At a recent debate on this issue, Malcolm Gladwell raised that legal concept that “hard cases make bad law”, which can be applied in some instances, but here, works the opposite way around - this is a case that is entirely the result of bad “law”, or policy. A policy that…
…by design creates unfairness and exclusion for someone by prioritizing inclusion for another (Emma Weyant, in this case), despite abundant science that shows that significant advantages will be retained. Again, this was known and accepted to be unfair to women. Predictable
For years, people knew that this could (and would) happen. All it would take is for a relatively decent male to be the case. Not at Hubbard level, but a little better. Someone 3% slower than the best men, rather than 10% slower. Close enough to parlay advantage into this result


Still, the stupid counter argument “they’re not winning, so where’s the advantage?” was bandied about. So if there’s a good thing from this, it’s that people will no longer be fooled by that sleight of hand. We now know & see, and many more people are aware of what is happening
And of course, “what is happening” is that women, not men, are not only being asked to step aside to allow men into a category that is necessarily and rationally closed to male physiological advantage, but to accept this, and then also to celebrate it. It’s a travesty for them
The media have driven an extraordinary narrative on this, one that somehow culminated in recent articles that equate trans women to masculine females. Reject this and you must be transphobe, as though only one set of people’s right matter (& it ain’t Women’s!). The total denial
…that this is a colliding rights issue is amazing to me. Another legal adage: “your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. Well, women are being punched on the nose (metaphorically, not literally, though that too has happened and will get worse with this policy)
Where we are now is in some ways a better place, because I see and hear how many more women are saying “No, thank you” in response. That is good. What is not necessarily good (aside from that this even happened) is some of the “red herrings”. For instance, Thomas’ motives don’t
…matter to the issue of fairness, and speculating on that distracts from the fairness & integrity of Women’s sport issue. Also this is not about Thomas per se, who is just the manifestation of the policy. I’d rather see your ire directed at those who facilitated this unfairness.
Another thing that will happen more now is a (not so) subtle shift in the debate. Having been told for years to shut up & accept it because no TW are winning, women will now be told to shut up & accept it for “the greater good”. Or “it’s only one”. Is this progress? At least the
…motives of people are clear and obvious. We will also hear arguments about how TW inclusion should be accepted at sub-elite levels, when titles and prize money and contracts are not involved. Reject that. People don’t get decide that only those things matter to women in sport
Women get to decide. And besides, the beauty of sport is its “predictable” meritocracy and inter-connectedness. That said, where non-zero sum (colliding rights) inclusion is possible, in a safe way, there should be no barrier to welcoming TW into sport. I believe we need to be…
…very clear on what boundaries cannot be crossed and then hold firm on those, but recognize that if fairness & safety are the reasons, then by logical extension, if fairness (that is, selection) & safety are not issues, there is no need for a boundary. Your position is stronger
…if that is recognized and even welcomed. But the line that exists to ensure fairness & safety - that is THE line to focus on and reinforce. Lastly, I want to add that as a physiologist and sports scientist, the current growth of women’s sport should be exciting, giving rise to
…so many wonderful topics of discussion. Strade Bianche 2 weeks ago provided one of the all time great finishes. I remember going straight from watching that into a debate on TW in sports. This is a controversy that sucks air away from Women’s sport, diminishing the achievements
…of legitimate athletes who deserve 100% of the focus & celebration. Aside from directly denying fairness to many, that is also unfair. It matters, so the conversation WILL be had, missteps along the way, but it sure would be nice not to have it. Rather celebrate women

[Max Fowler]

Congratulations to Lia Thomas. I can only imagine the amount of training and effort and hard work that went into going from the 775th fastest male swimmer to the fastest female swimmer. So brave, blazing a trail for trans rights. Takes real balls to do that in the face of blatant transphobia

You’re not coming across well with posts like that.

Im not au fait with this topic generally and don’t know this story - where is Lia in her transition process?

[CEB]

[Dunners]

Apparently the female swimmers have been threatened with being dropped, losing their scholarships and therefore their education if the complain or protest about any of this. But in a way events such as this are a good thing as it highlights how batsh*t crazy it all is.

We just need to accept that not everyone can get what they want in life, as unfair as that may feel. And that some people will need to be told "no" (albeit as sensitively as possible).

I have no idea what it must be like for somebody who genuinely believes that have been born into the wrong body, and all the challenges that must throw up as they progress through life. Whether this is a very real phenomenon, a symptom of some some physiological disorder, or something else, is not going to be the pressing question on the mind of somebody going through this. To them it will be real, regardless of the underlying cause, and is likely to cause them great suffering.

While this situation needs to be challenged, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't attack Trans people per se, but challenges those who are pushing this agenda in such an uncompromising way. But that will be hard as they always re-position any counter-arguments and scientific reasoning as "denying their existence" and "doing them harm". Trans people need to be protected, society needs to be open-minded to change, but there will be limits.

[Dunners]

[CEB]

Remember - the activism isn’t about being born in the wrong body. Even crazy organisations like Mermaids no longer claim this. Dysphoria, intense distress and mental health issues aren’t a requirement for being seen as valid. It really is fundamental to this issue, and bears repeating: the claim is that a self described innate sense that one is a woman, is what makes one a woman. That includes “feeling like a woman” while being entirely comfortable with one’s male body.

I think that men like William Thomas don’t actually deserve sensitivity in being told in no uncertain terms that he doesn’t belong in women’s sport. Even if he did suffer dysphoria, he has access to the same rational arguments the rest of us do, and chose to sh*t all over exceptional women swimmers.

[Long slender neck]

If Lia believes they were born in the wrong body, can they not accept that this 'wrong body' is giving them an unfair advantage?

[CEB]

*he. Language is important. We’re talking about an unambiguous male person in women’s sports. Language that ignores sex reinforces policy that ignores sex.