you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]889250 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

My favorite is "fact" three. It's hypocritical when they bring up gender policing when they're the biggest enforcers of gender stereotypes.

I'm sure many athletic women have been called too masculine or manly, but at the end of the day biological sex is pretty easy to prove so anyone who claims "she's too good at a sport, must be a man" would easily be proven wrong if the person in question is biologically female. It's basically a non-issue, the only thing getting hurt by not allowing trans identified men compete in women's sports is those men's feelings. I fail to see how allowing biological men compete with women is at all beneficial to women when the outcome will be all top "female" athletes will be men.

[–]MarkTwainiac 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

My favorite is "fact" three. It's hypocritical when they bring up gender policing when they're the biggest enforcers of gender stereotypes.

Also, in sports, particularly competitive sports, policing of athletes' bodies in various ways comes with the territory. In elite level sports and various professional leagues, anti-doping regulations require that athletes get randomly visited and called upon to drop their trousers and undies and urinate in full view of a sports official so that their pee can be tested for banned substances.

In sports where there are different categories based on weight, such as boxing and wrestling, athletes are weighed publicly. In professional boxing, the weigh-ins long have been a media spectacle, as this clip showing Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali talk trash about Joe Louis and Sonny Liston at a weigh-in from 1964 shows: https://youtu.be/SJRHxr1fYw0

Take any sport, even many JHS and HS scholastic sports, and there's probably a website or many where you can look up the stats of individual athletes, which include not just records of how well they've performed, but personal information such as their height, weight and sometimes their shoe size.

For 30 years starting in the mid-1960s, elite athletes competing in the female division were all required to give buccal swabs of saliva (from inside their mouths) in order to get their sex chromosomes tested. This practice was discontinued coz of complaints and legal challenges by athletes competing in female sports found to be XY. Buccal swab testing - which took a few seconds, was painless, did not involve disrobing or bodily probing, and only had to be done once in an athlete's career/life - did not engender [LOL] a hue and cry from XX athletes. The XX athletes did not mind this one-time "policing" of their bodies to ascertain their chromosomal sex. All the athletes who raised formal objections were ones that the sex chromosome testing revealed to be XY.

Significantly, the first XY athlete to win a legal challenge to the practice of buccal swab sex chromosome was on the Olympic Committee that in 2015 decided to allow male athletes who "identify as" female to compete in the Olympics so long as they've lowered their testosterone to levels lower than the normal male range, but are still four to 10 or more times higher than the female range.

Those who make the "gender policing" argument like to bring up the specter of what happened before DNA testing became possible and the various DSDs began to be described and well understood in medical literature. In the 1950s and 60s, elite athletes in the female category in some elite international sports, such as track & field, had to provide medical certificates documenting their "femininity" and to strip naked and parade in front of sports officials. The athletes found this invasive, degrading and sexist - understandably so, coz it was. But all of that ended with the introduction of sex chromosome testing in the mid-60s.

Still, males who want to compete in female sports and those who back them still continually call up the specter of the kind of sex testing that was stopped more than a half century ago to make the claim that all/any sex testing in today's era and the future is inherently unfair, sexist and prurient - indicative of a voyeuristic, fetishistic, perverted and entirely uncalled-for curiosity about "what's in someone's pants."

Caster Semenya's PR campaign and legal case heavily exploited what was done in to female athletes in the past as justification for why no one in today's era should be allowed to raise questions about Semenya's sex - which the detailed CAS court decision released in 2019, and statements from the IAAF/World Athletics, make abundantly clear is male. TIMs and those arguing on their behalf employ the very same reasoning. Today the injustices done in the past to XX athletes across the board are being appropriated by, and on behalf of, XY athletes - both "trans" and with particular male-only DSDs - who insist it's their right to be included in female sports so long as they "identify as" girls/women.

[–]BEB[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Exactly - there was a whole bunch of "these save women's sports bills will lead to genital exams!" hysteria spewed by the "liberal" echo chamber in the US.

Hello? Testing DNA doesn't require pulling down anyone's pants.

It's the same with the "assigned at birth" crap the gender lobby has made popular: DNA tests allow the determination of the sex of the baby well before birth, so in parts of the world where DNA testing is available and affordable, the physician attending the birth has to do nothing in terms of "assigning" the sex.

All these lies just make the gender lobby look ridiculous.

That being said, many people are stupid and /or uninformed, and the gender lobby has bought out whole formerly respected institutions and publications, and hired master propagandists, so we need to push back every single time we hear their nonsense.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

in parts of the world where DNA testing is available and affordable, the physician attending the birth has to do nothing in terms of "assigning" the sex.

Fetal sex screening by obstetric ultrasound has long been widely available and widely used even amongst people without much in the way of financial resources even in developing or poorer countries like India, China, Vietnam, Albania, Tunisia and others in order to facilitate sex selective abortions of female fetuses simply for being female. Ultrasound can tell fetal sex with nearly 100% accuracy at 70 days post fertilization, a few days earlier in the case of female fetuses. Which is well within the time frame for legal abortion everywhere abortion is legal.

In several countries nowadays, just the fact that a baby gets to be born indicates that it's very likely that testing in utero already showed him to be male.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2199874-sex-selective-abortions-may-have-stopped-the-birth-of-23-million-girls/

[–]our_team_is_winning 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've been saying for a while about DNA found at a crime scene. The police find male DNA and think they're looking for a male killer -- but he's out there in drag and listed in the system as "female" -- and I got told by a "liberal" female friend "oh that's NEVER going to happen!"

[–]BEB[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's already happened. I don't have the cases in front of me, but it has already happened.