I don't believe it was a search for fairness but is instead a search for an excuse to pander to male emotion and aggression. People often bring up that most of the male-worshipping activists are women, and democrat female politicians also vote to crush women's protections. Of course they do because many women are raised learning the same misogyny as many men learn. These women are also the ones that have anointed themselves as "special women" who know how to get along with men. Fairness is a cover word for aggression and hatred of females. I can't count the number of times I've been accused of hating men because I've (politely) told a male "No, thank you" when he wanted to involve himself in something I was doing.
I am 10000% in support of female-only spaces, sports, etc. However, your argument that there are two sex classes and that those classes have legal rights to be segregated in civic contexts runs counter to the arguments that women had to make in order to get access to previous men-only clubs, organizations, jobs, etc. Anti-discrimination laws that state people cannot be treated differently merely because of their sex make it difficult to use an argument that is limited to “we are segregating based on sex and for that reason only”. Thus, the qualifiers you see in play - women’s sports with men are unfair, males in the pool violate religious strictures, men in private spaces are unsafe, etc. The legitimacy within the context of anti-discrimination law is the goal of achieving a legitimate and proportion aim, which requires a secondary level of support because the first rule is that sexes cannot be treated differently. So if you do want different treatment, then there has to be a reason.
There is sanity and there is legality, and never the twain shall meet. I made that up. There's every chance that I'm wrong but I thought the argument used for women to get into men-only clubs, organizations, jobs was that those places were where business decisions happened so keeping women out limited their opportunities. Men have sports. They do not need to be in women's sports for that opportunity. They are not treated differently because of their sex. Yes, even squinting so that I can endure the burden of legal logic, "secondary levels of support" have in effect confirmed the being female is not reason enough for our own sports. I'll point out that, over almost two decades of fighting to regain women's sports for women, secondary levels of support have not been effective
Sarah. Thank you for this simple, clear and clean response. I have been down at the bottom of the pool of fairness, safety, and privacy for so long (all still very important) that just saying “because we are female, damn it” feels like a gulp of fresh air!
“The misogynistic asymmetry that’s at the basis of gender ideology is that males can simply assert their feminine identity and “deserve” women’s rights and spaces, but women cannot simply assert that they are deserving of male-free zones.”
Yes!
We live in such an upside world, much of humanity has lost their minds and the lunacy just keeps spreading.
Excellent points but I would like to point out that in fact it is not so difficult to demonstrate the differences between elite female athletes’ performances and high school boys’ and “sucky” male non-elite athletes’ performances as the record books in quantifiable sports at least show. So fairness is an issue in that case. Also, the science is well documented down to the chromosomal level, that females do not have a Y chromosome and that every other human with any combination of XY as long as there is a Y is a male.
Absolutely! But as I said, fairness is downstream of sex. Males are not females and thus are ineligible for female sports. Fairness is just one of many reasons females deserve their own sports. By skipping over women's right to sports and spaces based on their sex, it opened the door to an unending parade of stupid ways activists have tried to make it "fair" for men to compete in women's sports. Yes, they're easily disproven but in the intervening two decades, we've been in the weeds arguing about whether testosterone reduction works, completely losing sight of the main point—women's sports are for females because they're female.
I don't believe it was a search for fairness but is instead a search for an excuse to pander to male emotion and aggression. People often bring up that most of the male-worshipping activists are women, and democrat female politicians also vote to crush women's protections. Of course they do because many women are raised learning the same misogyny as many men learn. These women are also the ones that have anointed themselves as "special women" who know how to get along with men. Fairness is a cover word for aggression and hatred of females. I can't count the number of times I've been accused of hating men because I've (politely) told a male "No, thank you" when he wanted to involve himself in something I was doing.
I do mention fairness on occasion, because it's pertinent. But yeah, we have the right to say no to men in our sports simply because we're female!
I am 10000% in support of female-only spaces, sports, etc. However, your argument that there are two sex classes and that those classes have legal rights to be segregated in civic contexts runs counter to the arguments that women had to make in order to get access to previous men-only clubs, organizations, jobs, etc. Anti-discrimination laws that state people cannot be treated differently merely because of their sex make it difficult to use an argument that is limited to “we are segregating based on sex and for that reason only”. Thus, the qualifiers you see in play - women’s sports with men are unfair, males in the pool violate religious strictures, men in private spaces are unsafe, etc. The legitimacy within the context of anti-discrimination law is the goal of achieving a legitimate and proportion aim, which requires a secondary level of support because the first rule is that sexes cannot be treated differently. So if you do want different treatment, then there has to be a reason.
There is sanity and there is legality, and never the twain shall meet. I made that up. There's every chance that I'm wrong but I thought the argument used for women to get into men-only clubs, organizations, jobs was that those places were where business decisions happened so keeping women out limited their opportunities. Men have sports. They do not need to be in women's sports for that opportunity. They are not treated differently because of their sex. Yes, even squinting so that I can endure the burden of legal logic, "secondary levels of support" have in effect confirmed the being female is not reason enough for our own sports. I'll point out that, over almost two decades of fighting to regain women's sports for women, secondary levels of support have not been effective
Great comment but it makes my brain hurt 🤔
Sarah. Thank you for this simple, clear and clean response. I have been down at the bottom of the pool of fairness, safety, and privacy for so long (all still very important) that just saying “because we are female, damn it” feels like a gulp of fresh air!
“The misogynistic asymmetry that’s at the basis of gender ideology is that males can simply assert their feminine identity and “deserve” women’s rights and spaces, but women cannot simply assert that they are deserving of male-free zones.”
Yes!
We live in such an upside world, much of humanity has lost their minds and the lunacy just keeps spreading.
Goddamned patriarchies, starting with myths from on high, and cascading down into every nook & cranny of our societies.
#SheToo has rights.
Excellent points but I would like to point out that in fact it is not so difficult to demonstrate the differences between elite female athletes’ performances and high school boys’ and “sucky” male non-elite athletes’ performances as the record books in quantifiable sports at least show. So fairness is an issue in that case. Also, the science is well documented down to the chromosomal level, that females do not have a Y chromosome and that every other human with any combination of XY as long as there is a Y is a male.
Absolutely! But as I said, fairness is downstream of sex. Males are not females and thus are ineligible for female sports. Fairness is just one of many reasons females deserve their own sports. By skipping over women's right to sports and spaces based on their sex, it opened the door to an unending parade of stupid ways activists have tried to make it "fair" for men to compete in women's sports. Yes, they're easily disproven but in the intervening two decades, we've been in the weeds arguing about whether testosterone reduction works, completely losing sight of the main point—women's sports are for females because they're female.