All a man has to do
Eva Kurilova at Reduxx tells us:
In their push to destroy female sports, gender activists have dropped any veneer of concern about keeping sporting competitions fair and safe for female athletes.
On September 26, Biathlon Canada introduced a new policy on gender inclusion that allows men unrestricted access to the female category on the basis of self-declared gender identity. In other words, all a man has to do is say he is a woman, and he’s allowed to cheat his way to a female athlete’s spot on the podium.
According to the Biathlon Canada website, the policy was passed with the unanimous approval of the board of directors and is intended to outline “how the organization will create respectful and inclusive environments for participation that value the individual’s gender identity and gender expression.”
But by doing that the organization will create insulting and hostile environments that disvalue the individual’s sex. Most people don’t claim to have a “gender identity” that contradicts their sex, so it’s not at all clear why any athletic organization would decide to pamper gender identity while ruining women’s sports.
The policy is five pages of drivel about gender idenniny.
Where one might expect to see references to studies and data about sport performance, the document instead presents readers with a Gender Unicorn to use as a “framework of understanding the different categories of human identities.”
In other words a childish cartoon. “Yo ladies we’re driving a tank through your sport and here’s an adorable cartoon to explain why.”
It’s so fucking insulting it’s beyond belief.
Let it sink in that a sporting organization is using a purple cartoon unicorn to explain a policy that strips the female category of all protections.
It has sunk in. The result is a lava flow of rage.
In the Biathlon Canada Gender Inclusion Policy – Information Document & FAQ, the organization further asserts that, “for any competition that falls under Biathlon Canada’s jurisdiction, participants will compete in the gender category that is the most gender affirming and/or safest for them.”
But that’s an attempt to square the circle. You can’t do both. If you pick “gender affirming” as Biathlon Canada has then you make it literally impossible for women to compete in the gender category that is the safest for them. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.
Not much of a safety concern in biathlon, but forget any chance of winning. Men’s 20km record is 46:48, women’s is 40:52, which means the man is about 2km ahead.
A website I write for recently published this by Franz De Waal, which might be of interest to readers here:
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2022/10/the-gendered-ape-essay-5-how-natural-is-lgbtq-diversity.html#more-221084
By the way, the Contact function is not working for me.
Want me to email you?
I know that it’s happening but I still can’t see how a TIM can’t grasp the “trans” part of their whole self-identification. They say they’re “trans” and not “cis” but they pretend that being “trans” (IOW: having been born with a male body) confers zero advantage. It has zero impact. It is inconsequential and meaningless.
Of course, in this exercise they’re assisted by otherwise intelligent people who let their brains turn into mush whenever the issue of transgenderism is under discussion. The conclusion of that 16-minute video is that since competitive sport is based on having advantages (greater height, greater strength, speed, coordination, what have you) then we might as well eliminate women’s sports altogether and only have one category for everyone. [She doesn’t actually say that. It’s just the logical conclusion of her argument. That the elimination of women’s sports would also upset TIMs might also be a relevant factor.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ9YAFYIBOU&t=733s (in case my html was done wrong.)
It’s just like with sexual attraction. A TIM can hate his male features and [sometimes] loathe his penis, and he might admit to only being attracted to “cis” women, but he can’t grant the same consideration to a “cis” lesbian.
The whole thing is a mess. They make the concept of “woman” to be meaningless (or at least undefinable) and it therefore makes it easier for them to say “I am a woman” because there’s no real thing that they have to do or say or be for that to be true.
And it’s all to make the lie easier to uphold. Hence the denial of the existence of detransitioners, whose existence undercuts the entire premise of attacking “gate-keepers” and insisting upon “affirmative care.”
Nope, just wanted to make sure you got the link.
Naif #1 said:
Is that backwards? Shouldn’t the men’s record be shorter than the women’s, not longer?
Dangit, sorry maddog – the women’s 15km record is 40:52. The top men are covering another 5km in just 6 minutes.
And that stupid unicorn explains nothing. They have nothing to say about people who do not have a “gender identity.” I don’t “identify as” either any gender or any sex. I have a sex — I have no choice about that — but I don’t “identify with” anything having to do with sex or gender. The same old same old (i.e., newfangled) falsehood about “sex assigned at birth.” It’s not “assigned” and it’s not “at birth.” It’s inherent, and observable. There’s no such category as “other” or “intersex” when it comes to sex. There’s only male and female. And what are all those stupid arrows pointing to? From what, to what? The green “gender expression” arrows would in reality be splitting and twisting and turning all over the place, even for a single person. Almost nobody goes directly down the “masculine” or “feminine” straight lines. The yellow and red arrow lines are equally misleading. It’s all a fake, stupid, idiotic cartoon, as nonexistent and imaginary as unicorns, ffs.
According to the idiotic cartoon, male and female are sexes, and somehow also gender identities. Actually they aren’t even sexes – this is diminished with the silly ‘assigned’.
maddog1129 #9
This is the one point I wish the GC side would emphasize a lot more. We should not let TRAs get so easily away with redefining “man” and “woman” in terms of “gender identity” while continuing to talk and act as if those words still applied to the rest of us. If trans women are women, they are the only “women”. Doesn’t sound quite so “inclusive”, does it…
Or as I like to put it, if the individual formerly known as Ellen Page is a “man”, then I’m not. There is no non-trivial, non-circular way to define “man” that applies to both that person and me at the same time – certainly not if TRAs want to insist on a non-trivial difference between “men” and “women” (as they pretty much have to do if “misgendering” is supposed to be such a big deal). You can’t define that person in without defining me out. After all you just removed the only thing that makes me a man from the definition of “man”. Nor is there a non-trivial, non-circular definition that makes me a “man” without also making Eddie Izzard a “man”. You cannot have it both ways.
We should hold TRAs to their own words on this point and force them to come straight out and say that e.g. the “men’s room” and the “ladies’ room” are both reserved for people who think/feel/self-identify/”present”/etc. in whatever ways are required to qualify as either “men” or “ladies” respectively according to gender ideology, and if those are the only options available, the rest of us are just going to have to pee our pants.
I was trying to explain the gender unicorn to my husband. He had no way of computing it in his logical mind, which wants to believe in things like numerology and astrology but is not able to. He certainly can’t believe in magic gender unicorns.