Female athletes face bigger issues
Narcissism continues its march through the institutions:
A transgender mountain biker dominating the women’s competition has said it’s ‘horrifying’ that critics think people like
herare ruining the sport.
People like HIM. Of course people like him will, if allowed, ruin women’s sport.
Kate Weatherly, 20, who began taking hormone blockers when
shewas 17, said a proposed open competition for transgender athletes would ‘limit their abilities’.
It will “limit their abilities” only in the sense of limiting their ability to cheat by competing against women and thus ruining the women’s sport.
The New Zealand athlete was considered an average rider when
sheformerly competed in the men’s open division, wheresheusually finished about mid-pack.
But competing against women of course he wins every race. Bully for him.
In a recent appearance on TVNZ, Weatherly said female athletes faced bigger issues than concerns over transgender women ‘ruining the sport’.
That may be, but it’s beside the point. Weatherly still has no business competing against women, and he’s a flagrant bully to insist on doing so in the face of objections.
‘People talk about the fact that we’re coming in and ruining the sport, but there are way bigger issues that women in sport face,’
shesaid.
Nevertheless having entitled pigs like him come along and tell them what issues they get to talk about, and that he gets to ruin their chances because there are worse things, is more than big enough.
Shetold Stuff thatshedisagreed with a proposed gender-neutral category for transgender athletes because, inhermind,sheis a woman.
And the Mail is helping him with all this she her crap.
‘My thing is, I’m not gender neutral. I’m a girl. The whole idea of a third category invalidates my sense of identity,’
shesaid.
And he considers “validation” of his “identity” more important than women’s opportunities to play women’s sports. He’s entirely happy to ruin it for all women who have to compete against him, for the sake of his precious idenniny.
It just keeps rolling as these guys see opportunity for controversy, headlines, medals, and money, while getting the praise of those knobheads who think they are progressive while cheearing the destruction of women’s sports.
The ancient Greeks used to play all their sports stark naked, as in the gymnasium, which word derives from the Greek gymnos meaning ‘naked’ or ‘nude.’ Only adult males were allowed to use the gymnasium. That would presumably have included ancient transwhatevers, who would have had to compete as males, with the usual male sexual apparartus easily identifiable.
As I recall, the Romans throughout their empire had a simple rule for all female sports, which translated out of the Latin simply said: “Iffa you gotta da donger, you don’ta belonga.”
Offenders were flogged, and then thrown to the lions in the arenas of the Empire. The sex, gender and preferred pronouns of both the lions and their victims were overlooked by classical historians. Which I suppose is why it has taken around 2,000 years for the trans lot to renew their bid.
‘in her mind, [he] is a woman.’
Well obviously that is the most important point in the whole controversy, and everything else, including laws and regulations, must align with that.
And there it is, naked and hanging out in all its glory: there’s no possibility of compromise. Not a sports category specifically for trans, not an “Open” category, not a Gender Neutral bathroom, not any accomodation however well thought out and intended. They don’t just want to play, just want to pee, just want to be safe from male violence. They want to see themselves as women, just women, period — and make others treat them that way.
Whenever people in sports start talking about hormone levels for trans athletes I roll my eyes. It’s not just that lower testosterone now won’t undo the effects from before. It’s because regular, ordinary women who don’t take testosterone don’t have to do anything. The natural hormones put out by the body are fine. So that is exactly what transwomen will demand. Accept their natural hormones or these girls will feel excluded.
Not to mention saying he is a “girl”. At 20, a human female is an adult, and therefore a woman, not a girl. But girl seems to be preferred with a lot of these entitled shits that take up woman face. Eddie Izzard, for example, is way too old to be a “girl” even if he was female. Yet that is how he says it – girl mode.
This is such a nasty bit of business that has been going on for a long time, this infantilizing behavior, which is even more pronounced by the pouty lips, the tilted head, the whole “look at me, aren’t I a better woman than those pretend women who were born female but don’t know how to woman?” It’s one great big misogynistic narcissism party, and if the left weren’t so buried deep in the bullshit, they would be able to see the misogyny.
That plus I think “girl” plays into the whole “fragile vulnerable most tragic” bullshit. How can these hulking brutes of women be so mean to little fragile sad tragic vulnerable fragile Kate the girl?
I’m not at all sure about this, but isn’t “girl” sometimes used as slang by gay men when talking to or about each other? “Girl, you did not just say that.” “That girl sure needs a lesson in manners.” “I’m a girl who can’t say no.” When I think of men talking like this, it just sounds like jargon from somewhere. Or a stereotype.
Yes, definitely.
A twenty year old isn’t an adult in any respect barring the legal (because we have to draw a line somewhere), *especially* males… I’ll go with “boy” though…
The argument from relative importance is just … It’s bad, m’kay. I caught my dad making it the other day with respect to popular culture. “People shouldn’t get angry about [insert pop culture topic] when there are important things like climate change, reproductive rights, etc. that deserve our attention.” There’re so many problems with that line of reasoning it’s hard to know where to start.
Does this mean we should care only about the most important thing? If not, how much less important than the most important thing can something be before we ignore it? Is there an absolute threshold of importance? Importance to whom? What if something is minor on the global scale but paramount personally? What of the reverse? How do we calculate and compare importance? Importance can easily be considered a multidimensional vector, so how do we compare two options with equal magnitude but different direction? More fundamentally, importance is a normative judgement, and as such it can and will vary subjectively. How do you propose we bridge the is-ought gap between values leading to different determinations of importance? Raw popularity? Familiarity? Tradition?
And on and on and …
I wish people would stop making these arguments so I can stop asking whether, since climate change is a potential extinction level event, we shouldn’t bother seeking or taking action against child rapists.
Ah, the return of Dear Muslima. Turn no attention to small things when there are bigger things to fix – a smokescreen that will never go away.
Nullius, yes but on the other hand the problems of two little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN
BEHIND THE CURTAINUP ON THE PODIUM!At least he admitted it’s a fact. Small steps.
Ophelia, you actually made me laugh.