Trans "women" athletes have advantages over cis women

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Yeah the modern liberal development of trans awareness is just that, a development fitting into a contemporary framework, but not really detached from what I've read for instance about certain native tribes in America having interbinary identities among certain individuals that were regarded as spiritually special. In a crude manner of speaking, gender as a social construct, one person just takes heavily to the other side heavily so far as to internalize facets. That can be a tale as old as time given gender constructs have existed any time and anywhere. As an aside I don't think it's dictated by patriarchy or respectively opposite liberation from cast responsibility.

Dionysus grant me mcfricking patience.

Really though if you want to actually lead with a rebuke or something, then let's begin.

[Karha of Honor]

There’s a lot that could be said here. About how the IOC has had guidelines for trans women since 2004 but despite none yet qualifying it’s a big deal NOW suddenly.

Why would this be surprising? I know I keep saying this, but until recently, there haven't been very many transwomen around. There still aren't very many around, although there are a lot more than there used to be. Breaking into the highest levels of athletics is really, really hard. Frankly, we shouldn't expect a population as tiny as transwomen to produce any qualifying Olympic athletes.

"Until recently".

Wrong. Until recently, there haven't been many OUT trans women around. Trans women have been a significant population subset, at the very least, since the priestesses of Innana sang prayers in ancient Mesopotamia.

I don't care about what old barbaric places did in the age when a Celtic warrior had the right to abort a baby post birth.

It is a historical fact, whether you care or not. So stop pretending "the transgenders" are a trend that teenagers started on tumblr.

And it's bloody irrelevant to any discussion about them them right now. Because you know most of history is not great.

[Madner Kami]

load of condescending, belligerent horseshit

My comment was aimed at Fuzzy's "reading" of old scripture and self-defeating forced attempts of language-substitution, not the question of the existance of more than one gender or transgender people in general. Write all you like, I thought about commenting on it, began doing it, but stopped two paragraphs in, as it's a waste of time.

[clearspira]

There’s a lot that could be said here. About how the IOC has had guidelines for trans women since 2004 but despite none yet qualifying it’s a big deal NOW suddenly.

Why would this be surprising? I know I keep saying this, but until recently, there haven't been very many transwomen around. There still aren't very many around, although there are a lot more than there used to be. Breaking into the highest levels of athletics is really, really hard. Frankly, we shouldn't expect a population as tiny as transwomen to produce any qualifying Olympic athletes.

"Until recently".

Wrong. Until recently, there haven't been many OUT trans women around. Trans women have been a significant population subset, at the very least, since the priestesses of Innana sang prayers in ancient Mesopotamia.

I don't care about what old barbaric places did in the age when a Celtic warrior had the right to abort a baby post birth.

It is a historical fact, whether you care or not. So stop pretending "the transgenders" are a trend that teenagers started on tumblr.

All I ask for is proof. That is not unreasonable.

[clearspira]

There’s a lot that could be said here. About how the IOC has had guidelines for trans women since 2004 but despite none yet qualifying it’s a big deal NOW suddenly.

Why would this be surprising? I know I keep saying this, but until recently, there haven't been very many transwomen around. There still aren't very many around, although there are a lot more than there used to be. Breaking into the highest levels of athletics is really, really hard. Frankly, we shouldn't expect a population as tiny as transwomen to produce any qualifying Olympic athletes.

"Until recently".

Wrong. Until recently, there haven't been many OUT trans women around. Trans women have been a significant population subset, at the very least, since the priestesses of Innana sang prayers in ancient Mesopotamia.

I'm not arguing, I'm just interested in knowing what your proof for that is. Certainly I can see how in the ultra patriarchal world that was ancient times why women would want to be men, but that is more for rights than actually wanting a penis. Same goes for less masculine men who would feel their lives would be easier as women seeing as they would be completely shunned in male society back then.

I'm not sure If you can seperate self interest from actual transgenderism in this case.

FYI, it's not "Transgenderism", and here's a starter source.
https://hornet.com/stories/how-a-sumeri ... -its-head/

I'm not sure I really care what its called today. These things change every fracking month.

[CmdrKing]

My comment was aimed at Fuzzy's "reading" of old scripture and self-defeating forced attempts of language-substitution, not the question of the existance of more than one gender or transgender people in general. Write all you like, I thought about commenting on it, began doing it, but stopped two paragraphs in, as it's a waste of time.

And if your contempt for and disbelief in trans people didn't keep peeking through in this post and the passage I quoted in my last post that would be a lot more believable. But since those elements are apparent, it seems unlikely the argument you employed (employing modern terminology to ancient cultures is dubious and in that light reading things mundanely is more sensible) was in good faith, and instead exactly what you claim it wasn't here: an attempt to dismiss the idea of historical expressions of gender outside a binary.

It's a pity really, because I dunno about you, but I'd love to know how the classical Greeks conceived gender variation. Or for that matter any pre-Christian European peoples. Did the Irish Celts or the Saxons of England embrace and celebrate people we'd think of today as trans? Did they have specific words and societal roles for them? The Franks and Goths? Best as I can tell we have no idea!

and that's the point really. How much of our various histories have we collectively erased or forgotten in the pursuit of erasing what we'd now call queer people? And what cost do we inflict on society today by continuing to marginalize such people and the communities they build?

[Madner Kami]

And if your contempt for and disbelief in trans people didn't keep peeking through in this post and the passage I quoted in my last post that would be a lot more believable.

Few things show, how little you really understand and how hard you try to construct a strawman in order to have an enemy to fight, like that single sentence.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

and that's the point really. How much of our various histories have we collectively erased or forgotten in the pursuit of erasing what we'd now call queer people? And what cost do we inflict on society today by continuing to marginalize such people and the communities they build?

I wouldn't say it's impossible assess toxic conservatism across cultures throughout time, but it sure is apt to recognize it as it applies to western European heritage. From purist monarchies to culture bleaching colonists, it's not too hard to consider how our binary construct is fabricated and the lengths a society will go to impose it upon individuals of its own culture or others.

[clearspira]

My comment was aimed at Fuzzy's "reading" of old scripture and self-defeating forced attempts of language-substitution, not the question of the existance of more than one gender or transgender people in general. Write all you like, I thought about commenting on it, began doing it, but stopped two paragraphs in, as it's a waste of time.

And if your contempt for and disbelief in trans people didn't keep peeking through in this post and the passage I quoted in my last post that would be a lot more believable. But since those elements are apparent, it seems unlikely the argument you employed (employing modern terminology to ancient cultures is dubious and in that light reading things mundanely is more sensible) was in good faith, and instead exactly what you claim it wasn't here: an attempt to dismiss the idea of historical expressions of gender outside a binary.

It's a pity really, because I dunno about you, but I'd love to know how the classical Greeks conceived gender variation. Or for that matter any pre-Christian European peoples. Did the Irish Celts or the Saxons of England embrace and celebrate people we'd think of today as trans? Did they have specific words and societal roles for them? The Franks and Goths? Best as I can tell we have no idea!

and that's the point really. How much of our various histories have we collectively erased or forgotten in the pursuit of erasing what we'd now call queer people? And what cost do we inflict on society today by continuing to marginalize such people and the communities they build?

The ancient Greeks were patriarchal to the nth degree. Women were unable to vote, own land, hold public office, or inherit property. All women were expected to marry from around 13 years old whether they liked the man or not and under Greek law were considered to be his property and from then on do much of anything else but rear children, keep his home orderly and service him sexually - the latter of which being somewhat ironic as having sex with prostitutes and mistresses was considered to be a perfectly natural thing for a husband to do.
Lets get this out of the way because you asked what they thought about gender variation: Their way of thinking about gender is so alien to us today they might as well have been aliens. You were a man or you were the woman beneath his feet.

You'll see that as history goes on this extreme form of patriarchy lessened, but NO MAN who admitted that he wants to be a woman would have been celebrated throughout the majority of history. The specific words and societal roles for such men would probably have been ''beaten up'' and ''pariah'' respectively.
Now, that does NOT mean that the transgendered did not exist, but they would have been so far in the closet that they could see Narnia due to the extreme stigma and danger involved. There is no conspiracy to erase them from history because the few people who could read and write never recorded them in the first place.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

There’s a lot that could be said here. About how the IOC has had guidelines for trans women since 2004 but despite none yet qualifying it’s a big deal NOW suddenly.

Why would this be surprising? I know I keep saying this, but until recently, there haven't been very many transwomen around. There still aren't very many around, although there are a lot more than there used to be. Breaking into the highest levels of athletics is really, really hard. Frankly, we shouldn't expect a population as tiny as transwomen to produce any qualifying Olympic athletes.

"Until recently".

Wrong. Until recently, there haven't been many OUT trans women around. Trans women have been a significant population subset, at the very least, since the priestesses of Innana sang prayers in ancient Mesopotamia.

I don't care about what old barbaric places did in the age when a Celtic warrior had the right to abort a baby post birth.

It is a historical fact, whether you care or not. So stop pretending "the transgenders" are a trend that teenagers started on tumblr.

And it's bloody irrelevant to any discussion about them them right now. Because you know most of history is not great.

I don't know, and that's a pretty outrageous claim that requires some pretty outrageous backing up.