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