Any furniture fans?
- Thread starter StevenC
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
TedEH
Cromulent
I had a few no-internet days, so I'm behind in the news, but all the "transvestigating" I've been seeing is that one boxer who folks keep claiming either is or was a man, neither of which has any evidence that I've heard of, with every second time the story comes up, someone has completely changed all the details.
I missed that one too, wth?
KnightBrolaire
Meth Detal
Imane Khelif is a biological female. All the fake outrage is just because people are overly gullible and think any muscular woman is a man, especially nonwhite women.
All the transphobes in my feed have backpeddled into saying Khelif is an "it" for likely being intersex, with Swyer syndrome giving her the physiology of a man and therefore just as heinous as being an actual man fighting women.
I'm not sure if the intersex/XY thing has been verified or is reality even if unverified, but I've seen plenty of intersex women (not sure what's the appropriate pronoun by default but I'm going off of how those I know self identify) and other than occasionally things like height or facial features, I can't say I've seen much in the way of consistent "definite disqualifying advantage" traits by virtue of those specific genetics.
KnightBrolaire
Meth Detal
Swyer syndrome would cause low bone density, which isn't exactly the hallmark of a monstrous trans man.
StevenC
Needs a hobby
Yeah, Kyle said he wasn't voting for Trump because he wouldn't protect the second amendment. Then all this started happening and he backtracked 12 hours later. The right hasn't forgiven him yet.
Don't say "biological female". Not only is it a term oppressors use, but it's not really very useful scientifically.
Basically what happened is she competed in an IBA tournament, did some tests that she passed, then beat a Russian boxer, and then the IBA announced she failed some tests. They didn't specify anything about the tests at all and it's widely agreed to be corruption from the Russian led IBA. The IBA is currently widely discredited by every non Russian aligned boxing institution because of the corruption.
Also, it should be noted that it was female athletes who wanted gender tests removed from competitions because they thought it was misogynistic, for exactly the reasons we're seeing today.
Rubbishplayer
Well-Known Member
The big problem is the polarisation of the debate, thanks to the 10% who put in the 90% of content on social media.
My two cents: it's great that we're finally getting used to a new way of identifying and recognising different identities in a way that puts respect of the individual above arbitrary "social norms". However, with this new recognition comes the need for a society-wide re-negotiation on how best to strike a balance between respective rights and concerns, so that we can maximise the right of the individual without infringing on the rights of others.
Sadly, that discussion is being drowned-out by that 10% of idiots, whose only interest is the pursuance of their goals without regard for the genuine rights and concerns of others.
And in case you're wondering, yes I think both sides' extremists are to blame for this sad state of affairs.
StevenC
Needs a hobby
You had me in the first half, not gonna lie.
Rubbishplayer
Well-Known Member
So your objection is....?
StevenC
Needs a hobby
Who are the extremists on the opposing side to transphobes that are causing the sad state of affairs?
I don't think there's a legitimate "both sides" when it comes to human rights, but there are a lot of well meaning people that are just confused or uninformed when it comes to discussing identity (pronouns etc). To that end, yeah I frequently see people getting attacked because they just dont know, not because they mean to be dismissive or insulting.
Not sure if that's what they were referring to but that's just my observation.
Not sure if that's what they were referring to but that's just my observation.
Rubbishplayer
Well-Known Member
On the one hand, the homo/trans/queer-phobic agenda, sadly often state-sponsored (e.g. Russia); on the other hand, the small minority of understandably-frustrated LGBTQ+ who, nevertheless, resort to black-and-white absolutist assertions of rights without regard for the impact on others, labelling anyone who opposes their views as "phobic", which closes down discussion.
For me, the reality is that social norms are an ongoing, continuous negotiation around the rights of all individuals, and that anything that polarises or disrepects anyone's genuinely-held views and concerns only serves the cause of those who seek to divide us.
Yeah, but like this isn't about pronouns or LGBTQ+ stuff. It's literally a woman being called a man because she isn't conventionally attractive and the absolute worst folks latching onto it because they are also very stupid.
Being gay or trans is literally illegal in Algeria. You think they'd send someone they believe is LGBTQ+ to represent them at the Olympics?
Being gay or trans is literally illegal in Algeria. You think they'd send someone they believe is LGBTQ+ to represent them at the Olympics?
StevenC
Needs a hobby
So you've got the people who want to remove people's rights and the people who are sick of people taking their rights away? Both sides.
Rubbishplayer
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Human rights come first. And to be clear, I've not only been very pro-LGBTQ+ since my youth, but have been trained in tbe issues in my role as a formal "spectrum ally" in the workplace.
However, the way the debate is conducted is often bigoted on both sides. And no it's not always to do with ignorance of LGBTQ+ issues: I've observed a small minority of people on the LGBTQ+ side resort to polemic, ostensibly on the basis of rights being absolute.
In reality, no human rights are "absolute". Assuming we have the ability to decide what human rights should look like (notwithstanding George Carlin's keen observation that we "have no rights", only government-granted privileges), there will be occasions where the assertion of rights to complete freedom will impinge on the rights of others. At these points of potential conflict, we need calm debate and compromise, not polemic.
We see this very keenly in the debate around trans rights. As an advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, I am keen to see trans people recognised as they want to be recognised. But I also recognise that this raises specific concerns with cis-gendered people, be it in sport, single-sex facilities or other topics. Closing-down these genuine concerns by labelling them the product of bigotry does nothing to advance the cause, and everything to feed the trans-phobic agenda.
Where you see reasoned debate, you see novel and intelligent solutions, such as single-sex restrooms. Where you see polemic, you see counterproductive reaction and division.
So yes, it saddens me to see the cause of my friends being put backwards by a few vocal and highly intransigent indivduals. While I have sympathy for their frustration, it is ironic that in trying so hard to advance their cause, they instead risk it.
Unpopular opinion but my observation was that it started with Carini kinda cowardly (IMO) withdrawing from the fight after taking just a couple hits. Quitting because you're being hit "too hard" in a boxing match at that level? You watch MMA and see women taking kicks to the torso/head/neck/face or be knocked flat out. I don't watch enough boxing to say one way or the either but I didn't see anything in that <1 minute match that led me to believe it was that lopsided.
Then you get into the stuff about Khelif's appearance etc. The photographs make the disparity look greater than it is, pretty much all of them showing Khelif with her reach fully extended, exaggerating the appearance of her muscles and her face. Carini crying because she lost/quit, not because "she got hit by a guy". From what I gathered online, most people only saw those pictures or the outrage on social media and not the actual match.
I will say, seeing them standing next to eachother it's hard to believe their height and weight are as close as the card says (like, within a half inch and a pound?). Not wildly off but enough that I was half wondering why they were matched up against eachother solely on size, unrelated to any of the claimed stuff going on under the hood.
Given, I think you've obviously got an audience out there looking for this kind of stuff to springboard off of but it was clearly weaponized by a group of people with an agenda and presented in a deceptive way. My friend that's a pretty liberal person messaged me shortly after the match but after it had hit social media saying "apparently they have men boxing against women in the Olympics this year?" and that just caught on like wildfire.
After all the faux trans-outrage lost it's merits (as if it had any in the first place?) then you had all the arm chair geneticists explaining why it's "still kind of the same" rather than just taking the L and admitting they were quick to take the bait out of bias.
StevenC
Needs a hobby
Carini had an unhealed broken nose and when she got hit in the face realised she was not ready to fight again.
Now the IBA is offering Carini prize money because this is all entirely p*litical and nothing to do with sports.
TedEH
Cromulent
Do you not see what you're doing?
Calling someone a bigot when they're being a bigot is not, in itself, bigoted. But more importantly, calling something out doesn't "shut down" conversation, it opens conversation. If I insult your identity or try to take your rights away, calling me out on it is not "silencing" me - it's quite the opposite - it's an invitation to open the discussion to what exactly was done and how it was received. A refusal to take that criticism (and using it as an excuse to call LGBT people "bigoted") is the thing that shuts down conversation. And then you get stupidly bogged down in "how to argue" arguments instead of addressing the actual subject.
If the only point to make is about the manner in which points are made, then you have no real point. You're just invalidating people's views on the basis of them not being presented in the way you like.
What exactly are these impacts on others you're talking about? This is a conversation about a person who isn't LGBT at all, being spun as "the LGBT-agenda allows man-shaped people to beat up women-shaped people", which is not at all what happened. I've got plenty of opinions about how modern identity does or could or should work, but at no point does any of that subject really have a meaningful impact to folks who are outside of those communities.
