NO TROLLS Transgender Discrimination AFL Lawsuit

[Black white]

It is if that assumption also presumes that the ~1% of people with gender dysphoria do not exist (which was my point FWIW).

To clarify, 0.01%

 

[Suspense]

*Groan* Who suggested that trans people don't exist? d

The quote I was responding to was:

the pretense that gender, biology (and sexuality for that matter) are not deeply intertwined

Claiming that the "millennial" distinction between gender identity and biological sex is a "pretense" [defined as: "a false impression or a false claim"] is to deny the lived experiences of transpeople.

 

[Suspense]

You miss my point by a very long way.

Thanks for the patronising lecture though. I might print it out and see if I can find a use for it.

On a slightly different slant, I wonder how many other parts of life feed your apparent belief that 1% trumps 99%?

Sorry, did you have a point besides whining about millennials? If so, it wasn't coherently elucidated. You also forgot to mention avocado toast.

Room for improvement.

 

[Bostonian]

My understanding is that she's wanting to play in the top tier of the Canberra league. I'll probably be howled down by both sides but what the heck, here's my view. I was taught at Uni all the way back in the early 90s that gender and sex are two separate things. So these ideas are hardly new.

Hannah has every right to identify as a woman and not to be discriminated for her choice - that's the gender side of it.

And shouldn't other people be allowed to identify them as they see them in their eyes?

BigFooty is compelling speech by only allowing Mouncey to be referred to as a she. It's forcing people to suspend disbelief to suit an agenda.

It's telling people that even if you see a duck if it's identified as a cat by certain people even though it's quite clearly a duck you have to refer to it as a cat or you will be censured and censored.

It's enabling a form of insanity.

How would an AFLW player go if they only saw a male when they looked at Mouncey and didn't see a woman?

 

[Chubberson]

Insanity

 

[NaturalDisaster]

And shouldn't other people be allowed to identify them as they see them in their eyes?

BigFooty is compelling speech by only allowing Mouncey to be referred to as a she. It's forcing people to suspend disbelief to suit an agenda.

It's telling people that even if you see a duck if it's identified as a cat by certain people even though it's quite clearly a duck you have to refer to it as a cat or you will be censured and censored.

It's enabling a form of insanity.

How would an AFLW player go if they only saw a male when they looked at Mouncey and didn't see a woman?

transgender is when the brain doesn't identify with the sex they were assigned with from birth.

A duck cannot identify as a cat because it is literally impossible for a duck to be a cat, a duck is a duck and a cat is a cat.

People can be born male or female. People can be male, but not feel like they fit as a male and vice versa.

I used to think the same way as well, but I did quite a bit of research into it and have known trans people personally. It can be very uncomfortable for them to be refered to using pronouns they do not identify with.

It would be like how you and I would feel if everyone randomly started calling us she, her etc etc.

So yes, she has every right to be referred to as she.

 

[Bostonian]

transgender is when the brain doesn't identify with the sex they were assigned with from birth.

A duck cannot identify as a cat because it is literally impossible for a duck to be a cat, a duck is a duck and a cat is a cat.

People can be born male or female. People can be male, but not feel like they fit as a male and vice versa.

I used to think the same way as well, but I did quite a bit of research into it and have known trans people personally. It can be very uncomfortable for them to be refered to using pronouns they do not identify with.

It would be like how you and I would feel if everyone randomly started calling us she, her etc etc.

So yes, she has every right to be referred to as she.

And I can't look at Mouncey and see a woman, all I see is a man.

Which is why it seems utterly ridiculous that you can be forced to call someone who is clearly one thing another.

Yes they have the right to refer to themselves as whatever they want, doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to.

Which is why I asked what if an AFLW player only sees a man when they look at Mouncey?

Should they be expected to be comfortable having what they see as a man in their changing rooms?

 

[NaturalDisaster]

And I can't look at Mouncey and see a woman, all I see is a man.

Which is why it seems utterly ridiculous that you can be forced to call someone who is clearly one thing another.

Yes they have the right to refer to themselves as whatever they want, doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to.

Ok then

So you would be happy making someone else feel uncomfortable as long as it suits you?

What about men that look on the feminine side (not trans)? I suppose it would be fine to call them women?

What if I see a girl on here that has a masculine sounding username? All I can see is a masculine username, so I should be allowed to call them a guy, right?

 

[madrigal]

Can we just take a moment to realise how insulting it is to biological women that governing bodies have decided that the only difference between a man and a woman is testosterone levels.

What realisation would you come to when somebody illuminates an insult to women when the insult applies equally to men?

 

[Fryman]

transgender is when the brain doesn't identify with the sex they were assigned with from birth.

Yes, no one is denying it’s a mental illness.

The problem is, the rest of us are forced to indulge in this delusion for fear of being made social pariahs.

 

[NaturalDisaster]

Yes, no one is denying it’s a mental illness.

The problem is, the rest of us are forced to indulge in this delusion for fear of being made social pariahs.

It is not a delusion.

Thinking the government is out to get you is a delusion. Thinking and acting like a dog is a delusion. If people do these things, they would be sent for medical help, you wouldn't be forced to refer to them as a dog or tell them that they are correct that the government is out to get them.

Why don't they do the same for Trans people? Because Gender dysphoria is not a delusion

 

[Bostonian]

Ok then

So you would be happy making someone else feel uncomfortable as long as it suits you?

What about men that look on the feminine side (not trans)? I suppose it would be fine to call them women?

I'd be fine if it meant a female footballer wasn't feeling uncomfortable in a situation where she's the woman in the room.

Why would I call them women when they are men?

There's zero need to allow trans people to play in the AFLW.

It's no different to people under 5ft not being able to make the NBL. Sometimes people are born a certain way and it means certain things just aren't available to you. Literally all of us face that and most of us won't be pandered to to make that change.

 

[madrigal]

Thinking and acting like a dog is a delusion.

Unless there was a dogma in support of it, then it would not be.

 

[The Tilt]

The quote I was responding to was:

the pretense that gender, biology (and sexuality for that matter) are not deeply intertwined

Claiming that the "millennial" distinction between gender identity and biological sex is a "pretense" [defined as: "a false impression or a false claim"] is to deny the lived experiences of transpeople.

Yeah, I'm not sure that insisting that gender and biology are "deeply intertwined" (and that to suggest otherwise is a pretense) is the same as claiming that trans people don't exist. Of course they exist: that's why we're discussing the appropriate policies for trans women in female sports (note that you won't find a thread on whether unicorns should be eligible to play in the AFLW).

 

[Senor M]

And I can't look at Mouncey and see a woman, all I see is a man.

Which is why it seems utterly ridiculous that you can be forced to call someone who is clearly one thing another.

Yes they have the right to refer to themselves as whatever they want, doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to.

I'll put a scenario out there for you. At birth you were named John by your parents--- but for most of your life you've called yourself Jack. You tell everyone that you meet that your name is Jack, it's what your friends call you and is on your social media profiles, etc.

But every time I talk to you I call you John, despite your repeated claims to call you Jack because that's the name you identify with. Do you think i'd be happy if I kept calling you by the wrong name?

 

[madrigal]

I'll put a scenario out there for you. At birth you were named John by your parents--- but for most of your life you've called yourself Jack. You tell everyone that you meet that your name is Jack, it's what your friends call you and is on your social media profiles, etc.

But every time I talk to you I call you John, despite your repeated claims to call you Jack because that's the name you identify with. Do you think i'd be happy if I kept calling you by the wrong name?

A lot of people who have changed their name have experience of old friends or family that knew them by their original name calling them by their original name and the few I have met didn't really have a problem with it at all.

ETA: Most nicknames are started by people calling you something else other than the name you identify as.

 

[Bostonian]

I'll put a scenario out there for you. At birth you were named John by your parents--- but for most of your life you've called yourself Jack. You tell everyone that you meet that your name is Jack, it's what your friends call you and is on your social media profiles, etc.

But every time I talk to you I call you John, despite your repeated claims to call you Jack because that's the name you identify with. Do you think i'd be happy if I kept calling you by the wrong name?

That's not what this is about.

This is more akin to someone being an atheist and they are forced to say there is a God before them even though they don't see or believe what is claimed.

Should they be forced to say what is before them exists even though they don't see it or believe in the assertion?

Should AFLW players have to be put in that situation when it's not necessary?

 

[zill]

More analogous was when Mouncey (who has played handball at the elite level on the mens team) wanted to join the Women's Handball team and was left off because her teammates were uncomfortable.

If Mouncey was 5'6" and 60kg it wouldn't be such a big deal, but the fact that they are already in the top 5% or so for height and weight as a male means that it's a fairly absurd scenario.

His teammates were uncomfortable with him sharing changerooms with them. Less to do with height/weight and more to do with him having a dick and being attracted to women.

 

[Suspense]

Yeah, I'm not sure that insisting that gender and biology are "deeply intertwined" (and that to suggest otherwise is a pretense) is the same as claiming that trans people don't exist. Of course they exist: that's why we're discussing the appropriate policies for trans women in female sports (note that you won't find a thread on whether unicorns should be eligible to play in the AFLW).

I am referring to nature by which we claim they 'exist' - namely that their biological sex does not align with their gender identity. To claim that the distinction between these two concepts is a pretense is to deny the lived experiences of transpeople and fuel the multitude of misrepresentations regarding their 'existence' - which have taken such forms in this thread as:

• Deluded/mentally ill individuals
• Victims of millenial far-left gender ideology
• Blokes who just want an advantage in sports

 

[bigboysdontcry]

Let the big bloke play.

 

[kirsti]

If this was ever allowed we would end up getting women suing the AFL when they inevitably get injured playing against biological men.

It has been allowed for over 12 years now


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[kirsti]

Mouncey's body still produces testosterone and requires hormones to control it.

The IOC went down the path of allowing weak rules for political reasons but has backtracked and has gone more sensible with longer term hormone requirements but I still do wonder if 12 months is not long enough.

The IOC have not amended their policy since Nov 2015. The AFL policy is a minimum of 24 months and half the ioc T level 5 nmol in addition to other physical tests. Still no guarantee of play if a disparity in strength, size, speed or endurance exists.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[kirsti]

There was a transgender kiwi weightlifter who had to give a gold medal back when she won in the female division at the last commonwealth games but tested as having too much testosterone for women’s sport.
I think we might see a bit of this at the Olympic’s and it’s not simple.
Just to illustrate how complicated as I understand it Hannah Mouncey kept her penis because she’s a lesbian who likes to have sex with women...with it.

I didn’t make that up or say it to stir the pot.
The problem is what constitutes a male athlete or a female athlete.

Untrue Laurel Hubbard competeted at the Commonwealth Games she did not win a medal she broke her elbow and retired from the competition.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Laphroaig]

Sorry, did you have a point besides whining about millennials? If so, it wasn't coherently elucidated. You also forgot to mention avocado toast.

Room for improvement.

I'll give you a clue, because you are young and lacking in acquired perspective. Inextricably intertwined and invariably uniform are very different things. Although it is a neat argumentative trick to take a difficult statement, then assign it a different meaning which you perceive to be easier to contest. Rightly or wrongly, deliberately or unconsciously.

I did mention earlier in the thread a long term (now) Trans friend - I don't assume you hang so heavily on my words that you even saw it. However. For 10 years I knew her as a deeply same sex attracted female. Then they became increasingly androgynous and lived happily as a person without demonstrated gender for an extended period. (I do always struggle with the they word. If we are inventing new words willy nilly and changing the meaning of others, surely we can do better than that). Now he is a Trans male - and I would strongly advise anyone from theorising in his presence that he was really always male and just working up to embracing his true self. A smack in the earhole would be not out of the question.

Getting to the point. Her their and his gender, biology and sexuality were always inextricably intertwined. The pattern changed significantly, the interconnection did not.

Oh. Avocado toast was in the first instance the invention of pathetic middle aged hipsters who are scared of growing up. And whining and disdain are also very different things.

 

[RichLeMonde]

transgender is when the brain doesn't identify with the sex they were assigned with from birth.

A duck cannot identify as a cat because it is literally impossible for a duck to be a cat, a duck is a duck and a cat is a cat.

People can be born male or female. People can be male, but not feel like they fit as a male and vice versa.

I used to think the same way as well, but I did quite a bit of research into it and have known trans people personally. It can be very uncomfortable for them to be refered to using pronouns they do not identify with.

It would be like how you and I would feel if everyone randomly started calling us she, her etc etc.

So yes, she has every right to be referred to as she.

Of course you're right that we should make an effort not to needlessly hurt people or make them uncomfortable.

But.. it is important that we maintain a distinction between whether someone identifies as male or female and whether someone is male or female. It might seem, on the surface, reasonable to say that if a transperson identifies as a woman then they are a woman. But, this is a slippery slope. The word 'is' or 'are' pertain to the domain of ontology - the essence or being of things. If we allow that a trans woman is a woman, then that allowance can be used to justify the ideae that their essential inner being has always been that of a woman. All this might seem harmless if not for the following...

The transwoman MMA Fallon Fox transitioned in her 20s, began training MMA, then had her first fight against a woman, who did not know that Fallon was trans. Fallon, of course, clubbed the mother-loving christ out of her. Fallon's justification was that she herself was indeed a woman, had always been a woman, and it was no one else's business, since they could hardly deny the facts of that reality. This is just one example, but the point is that this sort of behaviour is grounded in Fallon's underlying assumption that she is and always has been a woman, rather than being someone who identifies as, feels more comfortable as, or prefers to represent herself as, a woman. It's the former belief that led Fallon to feel she was morally justified in bashing women (for the record, she caved in one opponent's skull with a knee to the head).

Further, in trans politics these days, it is considered transphobic if a person was to date a trans woman without knowing that they were trans, then after 3 months learn that they were trans, be upset about this, and express that they feel they should have been told at the start, since they would not have begun dating with that knowledge. Again, it is an argument from ontology that is used to paint this as transphobic, since the dater should apparently have no problem with this situation precisely because, at the level of 'reality', they have apparently been dating a woman the whole time, who furthermore always has been a woman in their deepest ontological essence. The deceived dater, then, has no right to question this version of reality.

It is actually dangerous when trans identity is framed in terms of a fundamental underlying reality, which can be determined purely by the trans person in question, a reality which everyone else must accept. This can seem harmless because it usually is harmless, but it's actually important to preserve the distinction between what 'is' and what is happening at the level of 'identification', because it actualy makes a difference to the politics and ethics of what happens when trans identity affects the >99% of people who aren't trans.