How EXACTLY do trans right dilute the rights of other minorities and/or women?

submitted by GCCritical from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MinisterOfTerfery 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Come on op you know the answer, I remember when I was a TRA it still took me two seconds to figure the answer to this question.

The first and the most obvious one is sports. Sports isn't segregated by sex for the fun of it, it's because men are stronger, faster, have more muscle mass, higher bone density etc.

Not only do these advantages remain after transition, but in some countries you don't even have to transition to be trans. All a man has to do is say he is a woman and voila, he gets to compete in the women's category. This is happening in the US on the high school level, which means less sport scholarship opportunities for HS girls.

In order to give trans people the right to compete in their gender category you are taking away the rights of female athletes to compete fairly and win scholarship, sponsorships and medals.

Then we have things like rape examination. Unfortunately we live in a world where women get raped every day so in order to make women more comfortable they are allowed to request a female rape examiner.

If you give trans people the right to legally become the opposite sex, you are taking away the right of rape victims to be treated with dignity and respect during their examination.

When the pay gap is recorded, if you give trans people the right to legally be recorded as the opposite sex, you will not get accurate pay gap records.

Etc. you get the point.

I completely agree with you that women's rights and trans rights should be able to co-exist. But that can only happen if the difference between women and transwomen is acknowledged. If the law pretends they are exactly the same it's biological women who draw the losing stick here, in the ways I've outlined in my comment and in many other ways.

I hope that answers your question.

[–]GCCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It doesn't really, the points you've raised are best summarized as:

  1. Not understanding how estrogen causes muscle atrophy and often trans people's testosterone levels are kept low enough that they often are at a competitive disadvantage relative to their peers.

  2. One person was bad and they had a penis, therefore all people who have had a penis are bad.

  3. Your point on pay gaps is actually the most reasonable if not for the fact transgender people often are discriminated against more harshly if not outright murdered.

If my question had been "How are participants of this sub ignorant enough to believe trans rights dilute women's rights?" this would have answered that in spades though.

Between this and the person who thought it was relevant to actually try and argue a link between women's rights and African children, this sub gives a "We're only just barely more coherent than flat earth conspiracy theorists" vibe.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Minister pointed out

we live in a world where women get raped every day so

To which you responded

One person was bad and they had a penis, therefore all people who have had a penis are bad.

https://youtu.be/1esrEb9p0Wc

Not understanding how estrogen causes muscle atrophy and often trans people's testosterone levels are kept low enough that they often are at a competitive disadvantage relative to their peers.

Males who takes exogenous estrogen - as well as T blockers - lose minimal muscle mass and strength as a result - 5% after 12 months. After three years on such drugs, they still retain significant muscle advantages that help give males such a huge leg up, as it were, over females in sports.

Moreover, muscle mass and strength constitute only some of the advantages that males have over females that matter in sports. Taking estradiol & T suppressants does not cause males to get shorter, change their skeletal structure, narrow their hips or shoulders, reduce the length or density of their bones, change the angle of their femurs, reduce their significantly larger heart & lung capacity, alter the way the their respiratory system works, slow their fast twitch fibers and so on. The only advantage males lose from the THT that TIMs take is their greater hemoglobin.

It's true that THT leaves some TIMs at a "competitive disadvantage relative to their peers" - their peers who are male, that is. But not relative to their peers who are female. Moreover, as Ross Tucker of Science of Sport has observed, if during hormone treatment TIMs continue to exercise, train & eat properly - instead of stopping exercise, training & restricting their food intake to lose weight in hopes of getting a more "feminine" figure as TIM "sports expert" Joanna Harper says they customarily do - there is evidence that males on estrogen (with or without T other suppressants) actually increase muscle mass and strength on the hormones.

Very few - 25% - of males who take even high-dose estrogen plus T suppressants for purposes of "transition" are able to get their T into the female range and keep it there. Which is why both the IOC and WA have set the limits on circulating T permitted for TIMs competing in women's sports at such high levels - 10 nmol/L in the case of the IOC and 5 nmol/L in the case of WA. The normal range for adult human females is 0.3 to 2.4 nmol/L, and within that range the majority of young women of prime sporting age have T under 1.8.

Between this and the person who thought it was relevant to actually try and argue a link between women's rights and African children, this sub gives a "We're only just barely more coherent than flat earth conspiracy theorists" vibe.

That's me! And boy oh boy, mate, you really got me there! As my post history shows, "incoherent," "flat earther" and "total idiot" are exactly the words that describe me to a T. It's impressive that you got my number right off the bat. Make sure you hold on to it. https://youtu.be/UfZWp-hGCdA

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[removed]

    [–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    The 5% figure I cited comes from research done at the Karolinska Institute, as well by the extensive review of all the scientific and medical literature on the topic by Hilton & Lundberg, which since has been replicated & backed up by a similar review by Harper, a TRA TIM with skin in the game, so to speak. The three year data come from the findings reported by US Air Force physicians. Ross Tucker made his comments in a different context after conducting another review for World Rugby, and my phrasing made it clear that he was speculating.

    An overwhelming majority of high school athletes are going to only be enjoying the social aspects of high school sports. The team bonding, personal development, and so forth that comes from that.

    Sounds like you never played any competitive sports, and that you are unfamiliar with scholastic sports in the USA. In US high school sports, the majority of athletes are certainly not "going to only be enjoying the social aspects" such as "the team bonding, personal development and forth that comes from that." Students whose main interest is social aspects such as social bonding and personal development can participate in intramural sports, club sports and a wide variety of exercise programs.

    Also, what about all the girls unable to "be enjoying the social aspects" of HS sports coz they've been bumped off the squad by a male who "identifies as a girl," or they feel so uncomfortable having to undress in the presence of a male student that they no longer are able to use the locker room and showers?

    What about the "personal development" of all the girls utterly demoralized by being forced to participate in athletic contests against male students whom everyone knows will win before the event even begins? How is "team bonding" amongst female athletes facilitated by forcing them to include males?

    How is the self-image and self-worth of HS girls enhanced by telling them that all there is to being female is long hair and lacquered, long fingernails - so any guy who gets hair extensions, puts on a wig and dons a set of acrylic fake nails must be regarded as a girl or woman?

    How does it benefit HS girl track athletes in CT and New England now and in the future to know that 15 statewide, regional or meet records in girls sprints have been set by two male athletes - and are so much outside the range of possibility for female HS sprinters that no girl has a chance of ever breaking them?

    How is "team bonding" in female sports and girls' "personal development" fostered when male athletes allowed to compete - and trounce all the girls - in female HS sports tell the media that the only reason they keep winning is because the female athletes, including their own team mates, just don't try and train hard enough?

    How is the social, psychological and athletic development of female athletes and female students & women generally enhanced when a male athlete who was 390th in his event when competing amongst his own sex switched to women's competition and in his first season "as a woman" became the Number 1 women's national champion? How do you think female athletes and onlookers felt & feel when this male athlete went on national TV to complain that he actually was the one at a physical advantage in contests against females? How does it help girls & women hold their heads up high and have hope of fair play when they read/hear the same athlete later telling the press that all the female athletes he trounced "are the ones who should be tested" for excessive testosterone coz if they were good enough to compete against him in women's sports, it means they either must be doping or are intersex?

    The problem is that you are taking arguments you barely understand, throwing them together in ways that are not sound, and hoping the formality of the wording intimidates people into backing down.

    your focus seems to be entirely on "How do I make hell for people I don't like?" which hate-based irrational thought doesn't really improve society and probably is why this sub got banned. If you had a genuine concern for the well-being of everyone (not just groups you are a part of, I.E. had some shred of empathy) you might be more heard / respected.

    Previously you opined that I'm an idiotic flat earther and a conspiracy theorist. Now you say I "barely understand," that my reasoning is "not sound," that I do not know how to properly word what I say, and all that I say is "hate-based irrational thought" which reflects not only my deficient mental capacities but that I don't have "a shred of empathy." Moreover, you tell me my sole aims are to "intimidate" and to make "hell for people I don't like" and that is why I have no chance of being "heard/respected" by anyone reading here.

    Your heavy-handed use of such ad hominems reminds me of the famous saying, every accusation is an admission.