• pimento
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 years ago

    Your argument seems to be based mainly on anecdotal evidence, and ignorance of biology. Lets look at some facts instead, like world records in athletics. You can clearly see that women’s records are significantly lower than men’s records. Sure we can argue what the reasons for that are, but the fact remains. And so its no surprise that some third rate male athlete can compete at much higher levels against women, which is exactly the problem that this thread is discussing.

    I think it is really wrong to ban someone for a difference in opinion, especially as that opinion was well explained and based on facts.

    • CriticalResist8A
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 years ago

      I didn’t make the ban, and the user made their opinions clear later on with several examples, e.g. “trans ideology” in their last comment. This is not a difference of opinion, there was actionable content there – it goes directly against rule 2 of the instance.

      • pimento
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 years ago

        Sorry i mixed it up. But i dont really agree with that rule, it is far too broad so it prevents any discussion of the topic.

        • Camarada ForteA
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          What type of discussion? What don’t you agree with the rule?

          • pimento
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 years ago

            The discussion we are having here. @LemonKemon@lemmygrad.ml was banned for explaining that there are biological differences between women, and men who change gender to become women. How can we have a useful discussion of the topic if mentioning actual facts is forbidden under the rule?

            • Camarada ForteA
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 years ago

              How can you ignore the context? He wasn’t banned for mentioning “actual facts”, he was banned for being transphobic. In his other comments, he associated LGBT people with pedophilia and “trans ideology”, and shared a random sourceless map created in mapchart website to prove his point. His map was also inaccurate and even false, claiming China allows discrimination of LGBT people, where in reality China even has a multidisciplinary health clinic for transgender children.

              Refer to CriticalResist’s comment on the specific issues of his comment. He was using (unverified) data on the average sexual differences in humans, but athletes are not average, nor they are supposed to be. In fact, the opposite, athletes are supposed to be way above average.

              But outside the abstract average, there are huge differences between men and between women themselves. What’s more important is that no matter your biological tendencies, what makes an athlete stand out is hard work and practice. The reason why some trans women won some competitions is because they have worked hard for it. These “useful discussions” usually ignore these “actual facts”. Because being born with testicles does not automatically mean you have an advantage, because again, what makes an athlete is hard work, not their sexual gonads. I can safely say that 99% of cis male athlete swimmers will not achieve the female world record for the 100m free in their lifetimes, even though the male record is higher. Saying that trans women should not be allowed on sports according to their gender identity because those born with testicles have “an evolutionary advantage” is not only transphobic but also male chauvinism.

              The article you sent mentions a woman who is protesting against the inclusion of transgender in sports. That same woman was invited by PragerU to talk about this issue. Is it so hard for you to see that this argument is usually parroted by reactionaries?

    • Camarada ForteA
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 years ago

      You do know that some institutions require trans women in sports to take hormones so that they’re on the same level as cis women, right? And that the use of these hormones affects their performance negatively, yet they are required to use it anyways?

      In any case, a “third rate male athlete” wouldn’t be able to compete as easily against highly trained cis women. Most of the performance you see in sports are related to the training, practice, they do before they perform. These are years and years of supervised training. No one is ever born an athlete, their years of practice makes their performance better, not their hormones alone.

      • pimento
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 years ago

        The main difference between men and women isnt in the amount of some hormones, but in the changes that occur during puberty. At that time, major changes occur in the body of women, to allow them to give birth. Compared to men, they store more fat, build up less muscle, have softer bones and wider hips. All of those are disadvantages in sports, and an adult man will retain them even after hormone therapy.

        Here is an article which explains this in more detail than I could