Transgender

If there are more than two genders, why do we have only two gender sports? If we accept transgender as just as valid? Why not have men, women, and transgender sports?

@kellyjay said
If there are more than two genders, why do we have only two gender sports? If we accept transgender as just as valid? Why not have men, women, and transgender sports?

Shouldn't that be posted in Debates?

In culture we only have artists ... regardless of gender, sex, colour, age, whatever (at least I hope so).

@ponderable said
Shouldn't that be posted in Debates?

In culture we only have artists ... regardless of gender, sex, colour, age, whatever (at least I hope so).

It's a cultural phenomenon; why shouldn't it be here? In your statement, in a culture, we have, regardless, so why shouldn't it be here?

@kellyjay said
It's a cultural phenomenon; why shouldn't it be here? In your statement, in a culture, we have, regardless, so why shouldn't it be here?

Should questions about racism belong here? Because that's just "culture" according to conservatives, right?

@suzianne said
Should questions about racism belong here? Because that's just "culture" according to conservatives, right?

Our culture is how we live with one another, what we accept and reject, our norms. I have no idea why you think racism and conservatives have to do with one another.

@kellyjay said
Our culture is how we live with one another, what we accept and reject, our norms. I have no idea why you think racism and conservatives have to do with one another.

At least you have common ground with her. She has no idea why she thinks that way either.

@liljo said
At least you have common ground with her. She has no idea why she thinks that way either.

I let that conversation go out of respect for KJ. He clearly has no idea where his party is at right now. It's down to the lowest common denominator.

They are racists who object to a black woman being placed on the Supreme Court, yet claim that Democrats are the racists. Despite Mitch McConnell stealing one SC nomination from a black President. The Republicans then say "Why do the Democrats always bring up race?" and then they say "It's not the race, it's the culture." Given this background, the purpose of my comment is obvious. "Culture" has become a dog-whistle for racism. And now they want the same dog-whistle to be about the same kind of hostility towards other people not like them. They've always been the party of intolerance, only now it is even more obvious. This talk of "culture" is a smokescreen for business as usual.

That I have to explain this to Republicans is more evidence of what I'm saying. They clearly do not see the depths to which their party is sinking.

@kellyjay said
If there are more than two genders, why do we have only two gender sports? If we accept transgender as just as valid? Why not have men, women, and transgender sports?

Follow the money.

In Western culture, the idea that there might be more than two genders is only just recently breaking news. Western mores have some catching up (or re-discovering) to do.

In cultures and times past where/when more than two genders are/were recognized, there aren't/weren't sports spectacles sponsored by big money, so it isn't/wasn't an issue.

As soon as there is big money to be made in transgender sports spectacles, with sponsors willing to put their reputations on the line and networks willing to broadcast live coverage with adverts to pay for it, count on it, there will be transgender sports spectacles.

@moonbus said
Follow the money.

In Western culture, the idea that there might be more than two genders is only just recently breaking news. Western mores have some catching up (or re-discovering) to do.

In cultures and times past where/when more than two genders are/were recognized, there aren't/weren't sports spectacles sponsored by big money, so it isn't/wasn't an issue.

As soon ...[text shortened]... live coverage with adverts to pay for it, count on it, there will be transgender sports spectacles.

In the meantime, men who identify as female will be winning all of the sporting events where men would typically dominate. It isn't straightforward to justify calling something women's sports if women are not the only ones in it. If there are several genders, letting the genders have their own sports seems only fair.

@KellyJay

The times they are a changin'. Non-binaryness is difficult for some people to get their minds round, and it will take some time for societies to work out all the consequences. Germany has already legislated 'male' 'female' and 'other' on legal forms (social benefit, etc.), but has not yet implemented sports for 'others'.

Maybe someday there will be separate sporting categories for non-binary athletes. Seems a niche at this time, but it may grow. Some research will have to be done to assess whether three or four categories should apply across the board, or only to some sports. Probably makes no difference in darts or snooker, for example. Moreover, in some sports, women naturally excel, so it's not just former-males competing as females who may have an unfair physical advantage.

@suzianne said
I let that conversation go out of respect for KJ. He clearly has no idea where his party is at right now. It's down to the lowest common denominator.

They are racists who object to a black woman being placed on the Supreme Court, yet claim that Democrats are the racists. Despite Mitch McConnell stealing one SC nomination from a black President. The Republicans then sa ...[text shortened]... re evidence of what I'm saying. They clearly do not see the depths to which their party is sinking.

Thank you for your respect, I know we have disagreed but when we do, I have not found you disagreeable.

I don’t feel that the judge is someone I think should be a Supreme Court judge. It is not because of her sex or color she lost me when she would not define a woman. I know that there are questions about some trials she was involved in, but don’t know specifics so they don’t matter anyone can be involved with any type of trials.

I felt she wanted to be politically correct on a simple question, if she can’t do the simple how can she be trusted with the complex?

@KellyJay
It isn't simple any more. It is understandable that some people have difficulty defining womanhood these days. Even women have trouble defining it. The Pauline conception, "woman obey, man cherish," clearly won't do any more. Neither will "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen." Women's roles in the family and society are undergoing great change and we are slowly coming to understand that biology under-determines gender. Biology is only one co-determinant of gender.

@moonbus said
@KellyJay
It isn't simple any more. It is understandable that some people have difficulty defining womanhood these days. Even women have trouble defining it. The Pauline conception, "woman obey, man cherish," clearly won't do any more. Neither will "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen." Women's roles in the family and society are undergoing great change and we are slowly ...[text shortened]... ng to understand that biology under-determines gender. Biology is only one co-determinant of gender.

Those are behavior norms, not biology; what is so hard about sticking to what worked forever and a day? The behavior norms have all kinds of issues, agreed, but none of that is used to define what a woman is; I don't define my wife by how she acts.

@kellyjay said
Those are behavior norms, not biology; what is so hard about sticking to what worked forever and a day? The behavior norms have all kinds of issues, agreed, but none of that is used to define what a woman is; I don't define my wife by how she acts.

What worked for “forever and a day” is culturally specific to Judeo-Christianity. Other times and cultures accepted non/binarity.

You of all posters here should appreciate that the spiritual dimension of humanity transcends the material of which mankind is formed. Biology is the most materialistic, least spiritual, aspect of who we are. This is obvious if you consider that a cadaver has genitalia but no gender identity.

@moonbus said
What worked for “forever and a day” is culturally specific to Judeo-Christianity. Other times and cultures accepted non/binarity.

You of all posters here should appreciate that the spiritual dimension of humanity transcends the material of which mankind is formed. Biology is the most materialistic, least spiritual, aspect of who we are. This is obvious if you consider that a cadaver has genitalia but no gender identity.

How many markers in human life do we have that separate male from female? How many body parts are unique from one another? If we find a dead body, do we wonder how they identified themselves, or do we say this was a male or female? If you want to suggest it wasn't until Judeo-Christianity before we realized there was a difference between the male and female sex, I'd say prove that.

I think we are weaving off-topic.