Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
She's legally a woman, but was biologically born a man. I don't see why people have problems with that? It has nothing to do with my views. It has to do with common sense.
VICTORY!!! LPGA to change policy on ‘female at birth’
- Thread starter KatieMCR
- Start date
She's legally a woman, but was biologically born a man. I don't see why people have problems with that? It has nothing to do with my views. It has to do with common sense.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Also, it is unfair she can't golf with women, because she's legally a woman. I get that. But it's more unfair to the women born as women who don't have the biologically edge of being born a man. Utilitarianism. One person should be left unhappy, not an entire group that has to bend rules.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Cat's got your tongue on this one. I can't wait for your honest answer.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
She won a long drive competition at age 57 and is an ex-cop. There's a reason they made the LGPA in the first place and it's because women can't compete with guys in the sport.
Wow you waited 10 whole minutes while I was writing another post on a different topic before you declared victory on that I was not able to answer the question. Obviously you're being totally reasonable here. Full disclosure: my response is going to be even later because I spent more time than typing out one-sentence replies.
The honest answer is, as with all people, "it depends." There's a strong likelihood that such a person would bring a lot of baggage to the relationship in the form of family reaction, identity issues, and given my age and the age of likely reasonably compatible people, a recent major surgery. I might decline based on generally not wanting to deal with attendant baggage. But if those factors were not present and I actually liked the person I don't think it would stop me. And I'm pretty sure my family would be ok with it too.
The other answer is, your question is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether or not transgendered persons should be able to play sports.
Non-responsive. The entire point is that we're dealing with second-best solutions. Choosing one over the other does make someone who disagrees with you and advocate of "one of the worst arguments ever made in the history of intelligent civilizations." Your belief that's the case displays your true feelings on the matter, despite your attempts to act like you're sensitive.
Your continued attempt to frame this as a "rule" that can't be broken indicates you're still stuck in view of gender that is binary. That is exactly the conversation we had over a year ago. It's clear you've gained no new understanding since that period of time.
That's a child's view of utilitarianism Archie. First, in your purely quantitative view you've essentially denied all other actual or potential MTF transsexual golfers even exist. That's the only way you can get to your "one vs. all" decision rule.
Second, you've given zero weight to the degree and type of unfairness. This matters significantly because the way in which a rule disallowing MTF transsexuals from playing is NOT THE SAME as the way in which the alternative rule is unfair. Disallowing players from competing takes away their ability to even participate, it is a total exclusion. Allowing players to participate that may have certain biological advantages (depending on the exact biochemistry and development history of the person) is potentially competitively disadvantageous to the people who participate in the sport, but does not outright exclude them from participation. You've clearly not thought about this at all because you are viewing the problem purely quantitatively but there is a legitimate difference between total exclusion and competitive disadvantage.
Third, there's a significant issue of precedent and how a sports organization will deal with later mixed cases. Hard lines forcing total exclusion create arbitrary distinctions in terms of who can participate because a Caster Semenya situation is essentially inevitable given enough time and a wide enough field of potential participants.
But seriously, your attempts to portray me as the one who is lacking some basic understanding of the issues involved is amusing to me. Please continue.
Dude!!! Don't just call it like it is... you have to cherry coat it and call it Diversity like everyone else.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Next question, kicky. Why do we have to have "second best" options?
That's a fair statement. If competitive equity was completely destroyed, or if (in a very unlikely scenario) a sport came to be dominated by a group of transgendered individuals to the extent that females-at-birth were functionally precluded from participating then there's a stronger argument for exclusion or creation of a special division. I don't know if that would happen or if it has ever happened.
That's not where we are today.
I got this one.
Lets say you have 3 flavors of ice cream...
Well that just about covers it.
carry on
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Way to dodge the question guy. It's a yes or a no answer. I get out of it that you would date a transgendered person. That's cool. I have no problems. Would I? No. Why? Because they are different. It's ok that they are different, but they are still different.
Um, no it's not, guy.
Why do we need to always accommodate people who want to do what they want to do when they want to regardless of the situations?
I'm not stuck on the gender part, guy. I'm stuck on the biological part. If I decided I wanted to call myself a cow, it would not make me a cow, even if society decided they would go with it and call me a cow. (That's just an example that comes to mind, guy.)
Child's view? Which child's view? You when you were 5? Child, please.
Wrong.
The LGPA made it a exclusion event, not me. They are the ones that made it the LGPA, guy.
According to who? You?
I've clearly used common sense, guy.
Wait, I "lack the basic understanding?" Says the lawyer. You can't be serious. I gotta ask. Are you?