If the IOC's Portrayal Guidelines can't go a few paragraphs without contradicting itself, how can the media go a few sentences without misleading readers?
The cognitive dissonance is amazing. I'm tired of hearing the word "transphobe" and the obvious question in my mind is if these dudes are "really women," how does anyone know how to tell them apart from "cisgender" women (aka women)?
Well as best as I can piece together from the IOC, we're supposed to ask them what their gender (or is it their sex?) is, and compare that to the gender (or is it the sex?) listed on their birth certificate. Hmm, now that I think about it, if some jurisdictions allow you to change your birth certificate or other official documents, and now your "gender identity" matches what is "registered," doesn't that make you..... Woof.
Heck, the electronic form my doctors use for my personal information asks for my "sex assigned at birth." One is in a small clinic that gives patients a channel for providing feedback. I have roundly denounced the concept as unscientific and political. The other provider works for a large organization that seems to go out of its way to prevent patients from giving it feedback.
Whenever possible I state observed and recorded and also mention how insulting that is to my doctors. I go to a Woman’s Health Center for endometrial cancer.
However, as we all [should] know, sex is determined at conception. Gender does not exist. Men are men and women are women. How are is it really to understand?
Those providers' medical degrees are questionable if they need you to tell them your sex. If they can't pass middle school science, I don't want them working on me.
Well done. Would it be accurate to say ‘men face fewer restrictions when they compete in the female category than women do?’ That’s what I took from our conversation.
The way that passage sounded in my head was that females don't face any restrictions for the female category whereas males face one: they're males! 0 or 1, the perfect mathematical depiction of binary :)
In the real world of increasingly arcane, misguided checklists of criteria for entrance to the female category, I don't think males or females face more / less restrictions. They're both subject to the same *ahem* standards. I think to some extent those criteria are designed to permit a certain number of males into the female category, but that they are equally applied to men and women.
When we get into adjacent issues, such as therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) - the topic of my previous piece here (and elsewhere) and several of Sarah's powerhouse articles - then there are definitely different standards / lower bars / fewer restrictions depending on sex vs. gender identity.
It’s an interesting point that ‘non-binary AFABs’ (to use the terminology of the ideologically captured) are being used to smooth the way for a complete obfuscation of sex.
Since time immemorial people spoke of men and women. That’s still the case in much of the world. Now suddenly we’re expected to use “sex assigned at birth.”
The cognitive dissonance is amazing. I'm tired of hearing the word "transphobe" and the obvious question in my mind is if these dudes are "really women," how does anyone know how to tell them apart from "cisgender" women (aka women)?
Well as best as I can piece together from the IOC, we're supposed to ask them what their gender (or is it their sex?) is, and compare that to the gender (or is it the sex?) listed on their birth certificate. Hmm, now that I think about it, if some jurisdictions allow you to change your birth certificate or other official documents, and now your "gender identity" matches what is "registered," doesn't that make you..... Woof.
Heck, the electronic form my doctors use for my personal information asks for my "sex assigned at birth." One is in a small clinic that gives patients a channel for providing feedback. I have roundly denounced the concept as unscientific and political. The other provider works for a large organization that seems to go out of its way to prevent patients from giving it feedback.
Whenever possible I state observed and recorded and also mention how insulting that is to my doctors. I go to a Woman’s Health Center for endometrial cancer.
I vehemently object to the absurd assigned female at birth and all the other obfuscating nomenclature used instead of woman.
I would make a point of crossing out "assigned at birth."
I would accept’observed at birth’.
However, as we all [should] know, sex is determined at conception. Gender does not exist. Men are men and women are women. How are is it really to understand?
I've learned the danger of the slippery slope when it comes to this ideology.
Me too. The nhs is totally captured. It’s hideous
Those providers' medical degrees are questionable if they need you to tell them your sex. If they can't pass middle school science, I don't want them working on me.
Excellent article.
Well done. Would it be accurate to say ‘men face fewer restrictions when they compete in the female category than women do?’ That’s what I took from our conversation.
Not sure what you mean. Men face fewer restrictions on what?
Allowable blood/T levels? Maybe I misunderstood.
The way that passage sounded in my head was that females don't face any restrictions for the female category whereas males face one: they're males! 0 or 1, the perfect mathematical depiction of binary :)
In the real world of increasingly arcane, misguided checklists of criteria for entrance to the female category, I don't think males or females face more / less restrictions. They're both subject to the same *ahem* standards. I think to some extent those criteria are designed to permit a certain number of males into the female category, but that they are equally applied to men and women.
When we get into adjacent issues, such as therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) - the topic of my previous piece here (and elsewhere) and several of Sarah's powerhouse articles - then there are definitely different standards / lower bars / fewer restrictions depending on sex vs. gender identity.
It’s an interesting point that ‘non-binary AFABs’ (to use the terminology of the ideologically captured) are being used to smooth the way for a complete obfuscation of sex.
Since time immemorial people spoke of men and women. That’s still the case in much of the world. Now suddenly we’re expected to use “sex assigned at birth.”
Forget it. I’m too old for this.
I will not comply. This is a hill I am prepared to die on.
Agree.