YES. This is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying!!! Like honestly, as a cis woman from Italy I’m so embarrassed by this nonsense. Like, cutting trans women out of the competition at this moment just means people are recognizing that trans women are “unfairly” more good looking than cis women. Which, personally, is true in my case but you don’t see me bitching about it. Fuck yeah trans dudes, trans chicks and non-binary buddies.
I’m trans and I actually agree with you. I don’t know the solution to make things fair, but I wouldn’t want to use a strong biological advantage over someone else.
I see it like if I’d been born with some identifiable and categorised physical advantage then I shouldn’t be competing against people without that advantage.
It’s debatable how big the difference is, however, and whether it’s a gap easily closed or not. My thoughts are that there could be an open category where anyone could compete on the understanding that there may be severe biological differences. There’s no easy solution :(
Edit: thinking about it, sporting competitions are more sex-catagorised than gender-categorised. I don’t think someone identifying as female with no physical/medical alterations from a biological male form should compete with biological females and I don’t think that should be controversial since the gender isn’t what people care about there. It’s the physical characteristics. In some sports that might provide an advantage, in some a disadvantage, but I do this it’s important to discuss! At that point, however, you’d be better ignoring gender and sex entirely and only categorising sports like ‘feather weight’ or ‘strong muscular development’ or something
I think this is where it makes sense to go. Like wrestling, right? Just make every sport competition divided on gender if it’s that important, and then divided on the basis of body mass. Although frankly I think that would make every sport ten times more boring than it needs to be. Like smaller athletes usually need to figure out a way to still compete, and that’s where part of the fun is, both in competing and watching. If an athlete feels disadvantaged, they’re just lazy and not training well or enough.
Then again, I do think sports should be less owned by massive corporations and media companies, and move more to their dimension of play, admiration for each other and self-improvement. Not saying sports shouldn’t be jobs and not have money go in and out, but they should center that dimension a lot less.
I mean… some cis women are born thicker and taller than others which might be an advantage over other women, biologically. Yet, nobody disqualifies those women from competing. It just means everyone else has to be twice as competitive and work around their physical limits. Sports are largely about overcoming one’s performance limits. Like, a shorter basketball player can still play basketball and be really good at it, it’s all about how they train, what they focus on and how they play. And it’s about how good they are at dealing with the space around them and controlling their body. This was always the case, always in the history of sports. Being a stronger athlete was never a problem before, and now suddenly it is? It doesn’t make any sense, and it’s just an excuse for bad athletes who don’t wanna git gud to demand special treatment. I’m speaking as a cis woman who’s bigger than most other women around me. Not my fault that I can accidentally throw other chicks to the bleachers without even being aware of them, and I’m still a woman no matter how other people see me. So yeah, this whole discourse affects me too, because trans people being targeted also targets any person who was born intersex or just different.
What’s your idea of what a trans woman’s body looks like, exactly? Like, do you think a trans woman is just “a man in a dress”? Because that’s just straight up inaccurate in every way. HRT changes trans people’s bodies and how those bodies work. That’s why we say “trans women are women and trans men are men”. Like, would you think making someone with the body of Buck Angel compete in women’s competitions would be fair? Google Buck Angel, look at him and then come back at me.
Given a long enough time on the right hormones, and most (not all) of that advantage disappears. “While absolute lean mass remains higher in trans women, relative percentage lean mass and fat mass (and muscle strength corrected for lean mass), hemoglobin, and VO2 peak corrected for weight was no different to cisgender women. After 2 years of GAHT, no advantage was observed for physical performance measured by running time or in trans women. By 4 years, there was no advantage in sit-ups. While push-up performance declined in trans women, a statistical advantage remained relative to cisgender women.”
There’s also a large band of ability within people. Michael Phelps has a genetic advantage, but his accomplishments are still celebrated.
Here is my question though, and if you have any info I’d love to see it. Do performance enhancing drugs interact in men and women the same way? I ask since not all enhancing drugs are banned.
If yes, how do these interact with tans people? Would a trans woman be able to get more positive effects from the drugs?
Ok, hold on, why would you forbid trans women from competing? Because of “unfair advantages”? First off, trans women who completed their transition don’t have a male body. They have a female body. And some athletes are naturally better at some sports than others. Like, shorter basketball players are naturally disadvantaged at basket, which is why they need to train twice as hard as taller players or switch to another sport. Also, every whiny white woman complaining about trans women doing better than them always forgets to mention the athletes winning are still the cis ones, which destroys the idea that trans women have an advantage.
The point never held up either in sports nor anywhere else. And it was never about sports anyway.
From experience, female clothes aren’t proportioned to fit trans women as well as cis women. While in your other comment you make a good point about some cis women also being outside the ‘conventional’ physical expectations for women in western society, that doesn’t also mean that trans people don’t face the same issues. We talk about these problems from a trans perspective because trans people are often targeted with legislation and rules from people who don’t understand, and are blocked from being treated as their preferred gender. A bulky cis woman might share physical characteristics with a trans woman, but their existence is also significantly less opposed.
Oh yeah, for sure, I’m not saying gnc cis woman face the same amount of oppression as trans women. What I’m saying is, by shoving people into very restrictive, hyper-specific boxes, we end up excluding people who by definition shouldn’t be excluded. Like the cis athlete who was excluded from competing because she naturally produces more testosterone than the others. While being cis, again. Or like, all the cis gnc women who get attacked or murdered because transphobes think they’re trans when they’re not.
My point is, women aren’t all the same. Also, women who are naturally prone to packing muscles can and sometimes do go toe to toe with men in terms of height and strength. But they’re still cis women, and should compete as cis women.
But all of this is pointless anyway: this is a BEAUTY contest, and excluding trans women in this historical period is basically like saying trans women have “unfair advantages in the field of beauty” which I mean, could be, but it’s very much a self-report. There’s also the objection that “trans women do surgeries to look the way they look” which yeah, true, but cis women who participate in Miss Italia also very much do get surgery to look the way they look. Matter of fact, there have been multiple scandals about Miss Italy winners having gone through plastic surgery to win. So I mean, everything goes.
Because excluding trans women from sports was never actually about fairness. It’s about normalizing excluding trans people from aspects of public life.
Men women aren’t a social construct. Society structures around the biological facts of there being men and women or male and female, and what makes them different. Which is something that should be celebrated, not demonized.
I think In society men and women formed a structure based on strengths and weaknesses. This is neither dominated by men or women, not the way you want to see it. Which is why I made an earlier comment to go to places where men DO dominate society on every level and treat women like 2nd rate humans. If you truly believe we here in the west live in that way as well, we got nothing left to talk about.
Does that matter? I said the west, the west in general is fairly well balanced in terms of rights or equality. Maybe it’s different in Italy specifically but considering trans men can sign up for miss universe contests, apparently it’s not so bad.
You probably missed my edit. You didn’t give evidence for your position so I’ve asked you to refute evidence for mine, just to make it nice and simple for you.
How the f would I go about proving that? You come with an article speaking about a serious outdated law nobody lived by to begin with. Changed decades ago to reflect that fact.
So, you think when bad laws go away, the attitudes behind them disappear as if by magic?
The article gives up-to-date statistics as well as the dates of various laws. If you think those statistics are wrong, or don’t demonstrate what the authors say they do, you can explain. Or admit that your opinion is rooted in abject ignorance of the world you live in. Either will do.
That’s cool, except if only certain people with certain body configurations have the uncontrolled freedom to be themselves, that’s still a problem.
Or, as long as people who do not identify with the body they were given are ostricized, there are problems. As long as there are people who are groped because their body is different, lynched because their skin is different, or kept out of certain rooms just because of growths on their bodies they have no control over, there are problems.
Just because you remove a label doesn’t mean there isnt a problem any more.
In that case, is “patriarchy” the right label? Most men (racial minorities, non-cis, etc) face systematic oppression, so it doesn’t seem like gender is the problem. Seems like oppression follows class lines, not gender, race, orientation, etc.
I don’t care if you call it The Wibbly Fuck Problem. Stop worrying about what it’s called and just do something about it. Damn. Everyone always worry about the unimportant shit.
Oppression follows ALL those lines. Oppression and privilege are intersections. That’s why a woman can be black but also be rich and live a better life than a dude who’s poor.
Maybe Kyriarchy works better for you? It describes a multi layered and interactive web of stacked series of oppressive factors that encompasses race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ablism issues etc.
Though under the definitions of patriarchy men are still oppressed. Young men and the poor are held in sway and looked at as disposable pawns and labor by the patriarchs - powerful men in the lead positions, like male heads of the family, but in this instance the ‘family’ is government, military, businesses and corperations, guilds, unions and bosses. The the buy in for those men at the bottom is that even a lowly man gets to feel like they are better at least than women. The act of being a woman is an automatic sort of failure state. Hence why men behaving in a feminine fashion are a threat. It subverts the hierarchy when someone willing chooses to behave as “lesser” of their own volition and seem happier for it.
The the buy in for those men at the bottom is that even a lowly man gets to feel like they are better at least than women.
This hasn’t been my experience, most authorities in my life have been women (teachers, bosses, etc). Even upper leadership in the company I currently work for has slightly more women than men. Obviously not everyone has the same experience, but I don’t think the picture you tried to paint is a universal truth.
Read the whole thing just for you. I think you need to read the whole thing yourself. But I’ll boil it down for you, it’s 1 psychologist opinion that you could word (leaves that even optional) to differentiate between sex and gender. However also points out, most psychologists, don’t see it that way.
I know plenty, nobody agrees with such views and in several hearings in the USA it’s been properly handled and answered. No need for me to do that. This isn’t debate club.
No, there still is. Trans men suffer from all of the same patriarchal oppression that cis men suffer from. The loneliness, the isolation, the expectation that they have no emotion. If you somehow watch trans people TikTok, The men’s biggest complaint is that they now have no friends.
So yes, the patriarchy exists even if gender is a construct. Because one of those constructed genders oppresses the others, and themselves.
“Patriarchy.” You use the word but you dont know what it means. We’re not talking about heads of households, we’re talking about the halls of power; which are controlled by cis men. Gender Equality advocates are not making claims that “men don’t exist,” just that gender its a highly varied spectrum. My guess is you already know this, and willfully ignore nuance so you can push a counter ideological stance. That makes you a lame-o. Sorry.
I actually think a lot of people are confused because they didn’t read the article or know what community they’re in, so I’ll take the downvotes in stride.
Trans people are people too no matter which arrow you hit.
I think the issue is that there is no such thing as a “biological woman”. Manhood/womanhood is an issue of gender, not sex, and gender is something that we collectively made up whose meaning varies from person to person and from culture to culture. The only person who is capable of saying “Person McFaceface is/is not a woman” is Person McFaceface.
Even if we were to interpret their comment to mean “sex”, that isn’t a simple binary yes/no kind of question. There is no single trait that determines maleness or femaleness, and lots of people have traits indicative of both sexes or of neither sex (or they were born that way then surgically altered shortly after birth), and sometimes those traits are so hidden and so internal that the person themself doesn’t know about it.
Yes, I do. This is a space where trans rights and trans people are respected. That means that their existence is accepted as fact, not debated in the comment section.
There are numerous places and resources available for that person to educate themself, if they had chosen to do so before commenting. Instead, they chose to comment from a place of ignorance. We have no obligation to offer them that education here.
I’m just enforcing the rules of this instance. Specifically hate towards any specific group (which includes rhetoric designed to oppress) is against the rules.
Sorry, not sorry. In fact, I took great joy in removing the transphobes from this comment section. I only removed egregious errors.
In a way you could say I’m maliciously complying with the instance rules.
They were banned for transphobia. Finish that comment. Don’t cherry pick their words. Transphobia and bigotry are against the rules here. As a cis person, I don’t get to decide what is transphobic; trans people do.
Trans women were born a woman. I’m not trans so I don’t get to decide what is or isn’t transphobia just like I don’t get to decide what’s racist towards black people because I’m not black. I don’t get a vote because it doesn’t affect me.
For context, Miss Italia is no longer broadcasted on important tv channels and almost no one watches or care about who wins now. Years ago (10?) it was a big thing and winners would make commercials and do movies/series and be remembered for life. But it’s too an old school concept now
I just googled it, apparently it might come back to the first national tv channel for 2023, we’ll see, anyway it was streamed on the official website before that and for the last 4 years
I think they totally can reject who they want… usually competitors are the winners of local beauty contest, so there’s a lot of ways to be excluded before even reaching the last decision stage. But not sure, I never really cared for it
I don’t know. I didn’t do the printing. The law firm did it. But I remember our lawyer mentioning that they fedexed over 20 cartons of printing paper. Assuming 500 sheets per ream and 5 reams per carton, that would be 50,000 sheets, or 100,000 pages since it was printed on both sides to be even more annoying.
No idea. That company folded before it could even respond. It was a typical dot-com with a completely ridiculous business model. That’s why our lawyer decided to fight the suit: he figured they’d collapse soon anyway, so we might as well milk the lawsuit for the publicity.
As somebody who lives in an area with an active logging industry, I can tell you that parts of the world with an economic interest in their forests still have lots of trees whereas areas that do not are very likely to have destroyed most of theirs.
The relationship between paper use and the environment is not what you think it is.
The year is 2025. A massive geomagnetic storm has fried all forms of technology, wiping out hard drives and solid-state drives alike, and scrambled all backup tapes. Coincidentally, a new plastic-eating bacterium has munched on all the compact discs without anyone noticing.
Humanity will rebuild…
The computer chip manufacturing pipeline has been restored, but there is no software to run them. In a dusty office previously owned by a lawyer from a long-defunct dotcom, a treasure trove is discovered. Five metal cabinets filled with paper: the printed Linux kernel source code, in 5-pt comic sans font. One brave soul will enter to transcribe. Mistakes are not an option. We all thank you for your sacrifice.
In 2016, Pulitzer appeared as a treasure hunter on The Curse of Oak Island on the History Channel. He searched for the Ark of the Covenant and working with amateur historians from the Ancient Artifact Preservation Society he claimed that a sword found in the waters off Oak Island in Nova Scotia had “magical magnetic properties” and was evidence of Roman presence in North America and contact with the Miꞌkmaq, which a historian of that people dismissed. An archaeologist and a science writer criticized Pulitzer’s claim, suggested the sword was a replica said that Pulitzer threatened to sue them.
Ok sure. But it’s not really an effective protest as they’re fulfilling the requirement to enter the competition. Because the competition is steered by judges they will simply eliminate the trans men in the first round.
The rule is there to make sure the judges are not sexually aroused when they see a trans woman.
A greater means of protest would be if the non-trans competitors all quit the pageant. But their look is their only talent, so they won’t.
maliciouscompliance
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.