Isle of Pride

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, 2112 said:

I’m sure it won’t be long before the media reports their names. I’m sure it won’t be long before the apologists will be out in force, pleading that these people suffer from various issues, pleading leniency. I’m sure the Government will be called if any of the accused are on benefits etc.

I’m sure it will be dealt with through due process ( including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty etc) . Why so cynical?

[2112]

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I’m sure it will be dealt with through due process ( including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty etc) . Why so cynical?

In some cases it’s become a trend whereby the same mob wants to string them up, whilst another is looking defend him, and blame his upbringing and social conditioning etc for his behaviour. 

[Zarley]

On 6/20/2021 at 10:11 PM, quilp said:

Controversial..?

 

 

Thanks for posting this video. (And I must say I'm surprised it came from GBN.)

I'm not transphobic, however I do have questions and concerns surrounding some trans issues. It's difficult to obtain any clarity as attempting to discuss these issues results in being labelled a TERF and getting abusive, rather than informative, replies. 

 

[Barlow]

  

30 minutes ago, Zarley said:

Thanks for posting this video. (And I must say I'm surprised it came from GBN.)

I'm not transphobic, however I do have questions and concerns surrounding some trans issues. It's difficult to obtain any clarity as attempting to discuss these issues results in being labelled a TERF and getting abusive, rather than informative, replies. 

 

 

Andrew Doyle pinned a target to his back because he is a disgusting person, not because he is gay.

Edited June 23, 2021 by Barlow

[Zarley]

8 minutes ago, Barlow said:

 Andrew Doyle pinned a target to his back because he is a disgusting person, not because he is gay.

Agreed. 

Whatever your opinion of AD may be, there were valid points brought up in the discussion that are ones I struggle with. For example...

It is true that a biological male who transitions after undergoing puberty will have a larger heart and bigger bones etc than her biological female counterparts, regardless of her hormone levels. It will give her a competitive edge in some sports.

Is it fair? Is it very much different to the use of steroids and other performance enhancing substances? 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

8 minutes ago, Zarley said:

Agreed. 

Whatever your opinion of AD may be, there were valid points brought up in the discussion that are ones I struggle with. For example...

It is true that a biological male who transitions after undergoing puberty will have a larger heart and bigger bones etc than her biological female counterparts, regardless of her hormone levels. It will give her a competitive edge in some sports.

Is it fair? Is it very much different to the use of steroids and other performance enhancing substances? 

The weightlifting case this week a clear example.  

Should have their own category.  Then sub divided depending on which way they switched gender.

[Zarley]

5 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

The weightlifting case this week a clear example.  

Should have their own category.  Then sub divided depending on which way they switched gender.

That's along the lines of what I see as a solution to the public toilets and changing rooms controversy. Provide male only, female only and add a third uni-sex/uni-gender facility.

The problem is - how do you police it? What would stop the minority of transwomen who wish to use biological female only facilities as a venue to sexually assault biological females from simply doing so anyway?

It's a minefield and as long as discussions are stifled by accusations of transphobia, we're never going to get anywhere. 

[quilp]

1 hour ago, Barlow said:

 Andrew Doyle pinned a target to his back because he is a disgusting person, not because he is gay.

Why is Andrew Doyle a "disgusting person"? What is it that disgusts you about him?

[AcousticallyChallenged]

1 hour ago, Zarley said:

Agreed. 

Whatever your opinion of AD may be, there were valid points brought up in the discussion that are ones I struggle with. For example...

It is true that a biological male who transitions after undergoing puberty will have a larger heart and bigger bones etc than her biological female counterparts, regardless of her hormone levels. It will give her a competitive edge in some sports.

Is it fair? Is it very much different to the use of steroids and other performance enhancing substances? 

You'll find, if you ever actually talk to someone on HRT, that most of their muscle mass drops significantly. Their hormone levels become within the ranges of a cisgender woman.

It even changes how their bodies process oxygen, estradiol messes with your haemoglobin.

Equally, one survey paper suggests that transwomen are on average, 10% weaker than cisgender men, and that's before any form of hormone therapy.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/28/bjsports-2020-103106

The paper linked talks about the impacts, and also discusses the challenges of actually getting the data to measure some of this. It highlights the oxygen factors I mentioned, as well as the strength before hormone therapy, along with some possible explanations. It also talks about how, trans women in the US Air Force perform similarly to cis women in push-ups/sit-ups. But again, that might simply be a limitation in the data we have for that 12-36 month period.

As well as the fact that the paper is based on a relatively short 3-year period. We don't have the data for people going beyond that point.

Is it fair? How about for a transgender man? Where do they compete? It's likely they may well differ from the cisgender male baseline too. Whilst testosterone will make some changes, others it won't. So is it fair to put them into the men's category? Or unfair to put them in the women's category, because the testosterone will give them significant advantage?

It turns out, as a cisgender woman, your testosterone levels can naturally be too high to compete in some sports. Various conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome can cause you to have significantly more testosterone in your blood. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159262/

The paper linked there actually discusses whether it's fair for women with the advantage that appears to stem from to compete with women who don't. Of course, a transgender woman's testosterone levels will be generally in the ranges of a normal cisgender woman's. So they'd too be at a disadvantage in some respects.

So, where can we find fairness?

[Barlow]

26 minutes ago, quilp said:

Why is Andrew Doyle a "disgusting person"? What is it that disgusts you about him?

I went to a Jonathan Pie show, he was the support act. It was just a highly disgusting tirade about physical homosexual activity, designed to shock anyone who wasn't so disgustingly minded. It was needlessly disgusting and graphic material that could only have been dreamt up by a disgusting mind. He would have seen it as being 'pushing the envelope', but it was just disgusting.

That's what disgusts me about him.

I see that he has positioned himself as the "go to" gay, and has manoeuvred himself onto serious chat programmes as well as 'comedy' programmes. He has dropped his 'naughty' and highly disgusting material of late to become more BBC friendly, but even the BBC will accept anyone of his ilk these days.

 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

8 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

You'll find, if you ever actually talk to someone on HRT, that most of their muscle mass drops significantly. Their hormone levels become within the ranges of a cisgender woman.

It even changes how their bodies process oxygen, estradiol messes with your haemoglobin.

Equally, one survey paper suggests that transwomen are on average, 10% weaker than cisgender men, and that's before any form of hormone therapy.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/28/bjsports-2020-103106

The paper linked talks about the impacts, and also discusses the challenges of actually getting the data to measure some of this. It highlights the oxygen factors I mentioned, as well as the strength before hormone therapy, along with some possible explanations. It also talks about how, trans women in the US Air Force perform similarly to cis women in push-ups/sit-ups. But again, that might simply be a limitation in the data we have for that 12-36 month period.

As well as the fact that the paper is based on a relatively short 3-year period. We don't have the data for people going beyond that point.

Is it fair? How about for a transgender man? Where do they compete? It's likely they may well differ from the cisgender male baseline too. Whilst testosterone will make some changes, others it won't. So is it fair to put them into the men's category? Or unfair to put them in the women's category, because the testosterone will give them significant advantage?

It turns out, as a cisgender woman, your testosterone levels can naturally be too high to compete in some sports. Various conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome can cause you to have significantly more testosterone in your blood. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159262/

The paper linked there actually discusses whether it's fair for women with the advantage that appears to stem from to compete with women who don't. Of course, a transgender woman's testosterone levels will be generally in the ranges of a normal cisgender woman's. So they'd too be at a disadvantage in some respects.

So, where can we find fairness?

By them having their own category to compete in from a sporting perspective.

[Gladys]

3 hours ago, Zarley said:

That's along the lines of what I see as a solution to the public toilets and changing rooms controversy. Provide male only, female only and add a third uni-sex/uni-gender facility.

The problem is - how do you police it? What would stop the minority of transwomen who wish to use biological female only facilities as a venue to sexually assault biological females from simply doing so anyway?

It's a minefield and as long as discussions are stifled by accusations of transphobia, we're never going to get anywhere. 

The changing room issue puzzles me.  I don't object to the gender of anyone in a changing room, I would be equally prim and proper regardless of the gender of those around me.  I don't think someone who is transitioning or has transitioned is any more likely to perv (should I really be such an object) than someone of the same gender. 

[Declan]

3 hours ago, Zarley said:

The problem is - how do you police it? What would stop the minority of transwomen who wish to use biological female only facilities as a venue to sexually assault biological females from simply doing so anyway?

 

Do they exist anywhere but JK Rowling's fears. There's nothing stopping a CiS Man with evil intent going into female bogs either is there?

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

Do they exist anywhere but JK Rowling's fears. There's nothing stopping a CiS Man with evil intent going into female bogs either is there?

I’m not aware of any transgender mtf being accused, caught, prosecuted or convicted of assaulting cis women in women safe spaces. The only case I am aware of is a nasty piece of work, career criminal, pre op, who somehow got into a women’s prison and raped several other inmates. That’s not relevant to the pretend risk highlighted.

I agree it’s a false dichotomy. It’s a false threat. People like Rowling may genuinely fear it, but it’s not a real risk. It’s irrational.

If she’s right then we also need to have separate cis male loos from gay male loos, ceparate cis women’s loos from lesbian loos. And that doesn’t start to answer the false conundrum of the suggested threat of mtf and ftm.

Lots of trans people don’t have bottom surgery, for pretty obvious reasons. The functional effectiveness of phalloplasty or vaginoplasty isn’t good.

However I’m fence sitting about self certification for gender registration. 

[AcousticallyChallenged]

24 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I agree it’s a false dichotomy. It’s a false threat. People like Rowling may genuinely fear it, but it’s not a real risk. It’s irrational.

I think it's deliberately used to invoke quite an emotive and visceral reaction.

A very good male-to-female trans friend of mine firmly believes that anti-trans rhetoric is at least partly rooted in internal misogyny, insofar as people not being able to get their heads around men wanting to transition to becoming, what they see as, the 'worse' gender. It's far easier to rationalise it as associated with a perversion in their heads. That's potentially where some of the 'men in dresses' false equivalence comes from.