Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Forbes mag article on trans in sports

41 replies

adultingforever · 05/02/2024 13:43

I cannot find another post on here about this one, so here goes! https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanmshaw/2024/02/04/transgender-swimmer-lia-thomas-body-is-not-the-problem. I have never seen this viewpoint before and I certainly do not agree with it. I remember when there was not a separation between mens and womens sports. How can anyone be thinking this way now??? We keep going backward!

Transgender Swimmer Lia Thomas’ Body Is Not The Problem

Swimmer Lia Thomas has sued swimming’s governing body for discrimination because it has barred her from competing as a trans woman in elite women’s swimming events.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanmshaw/2024/02/04/transgender-swimmer-lia-thomas-body-is-not-the-problem

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
CuriousAlien · 06/02/2024 20:50

@adultingforever yes my thoughts exactly. It feels like that a lot on the Internet these days, like every source and author needs checking and then I also briefly checked the place I found that info!

The article was so unjournalistic I felt the need to get some context and check the source. And the fact it's from a gender studies academic explains why the reference to science is laughable.

adultingforever · 06/02/2024 20:42

CuriousAlien: I just read your link. What I think is relevant is that people are trusting Forbes.com because it has been respected in the past as Forbes Magazine. Not sure how they get away with using the name in this way.....

OP posts:
CuriousAlien · 06/02/2024 20:31

@adultingforever I thought the same about Forbes. But apparently Forbes online is a content machine where contributors get paid peanuts for churning out articles and they aren't checked first. Have a look at the link I posted up-thread.

RufustheFactualReindeer · 06/02/2024 18:07

I really try with some of the arguments around this sort of thing, people with their own opinions are entitled to hold them etc

but when it comes to males in sports then no…not having it, any one who honestly believes that, as a class, males do not have an advantage over females is fucking stupid , no ifs or buts

Justme56 · 06/02/2024 17:55

If, as she suggests, we define sport by body size then Thomas (being such a massive male) would very likely be swimming against men. Did she think that one through? 🤫

adultingforever · 06/02/2024 17:33

Thanks, everybody!! The author is a woman, gender studies professor in Oregon, which is probably the most "woke" place possible - but I just couldn't believe what I was reading. You have confirmed that I am not mad, or not missing something here. This is just bizarre.
Forbes Magazine was/is a respected business focussed publication, and I can't understand how they published this.

OP posts:
WitchyWitcherson · 06/02/2024 10:57

This reminds me of the idiot man on twitter that thought he'd come up with an excellent "gotcha" by saying "it's misogyny to say that women can't compete with men at sports because all women need to do is try harder and they'll be able to do it!". I guess if we're going down that route, it's also misogyny to say women can't scratch their testicles?

Irony is this male twitter troll user was a wheelchair user - I wonder how offended he'd be if I said some ableist offensive shit to him about trying harder to walk?!

Anyway, all this comes from a fundamental lack of understanding of biology, or a wilful blindness to it in order to pander to trans ideology. It's fucking tedious.

Brainworm · 06/02/2024 08:17

When I read the paragraph about how similar men and women would look, it's no surprise that the following wasn't used…

If men grew their hair the same way as women, wore “women’s” clothes, and shaved their legs and underarms, wore makeup, and plucked their eyebrows, they wouldn’t look nearly as different from women as they do

Most of any of the 'onboard' audience would be lost at this point. Not least because they would have an adverse reaction to the mental image of man behaving in such 'a ridiculous manner (surely only women would do such frivolous things). The image of man (the ideal human) belittled by trying to look like a lesser human (woman) would lose whatever crowd had begun to gather around.

FrancescaContini · 06/02/2024 08:04

Didn’t bother reading when I saw that Susan teaches “gender studies”. Guess she needs to keep the myth of gender alive and relevant in order to hold onto her job.

WarriorN · 06/02/2024 07:59
Grin
DerekFaker · 06/02/2024 07:51

fedupandstuck · 05/02/2024 13:59

The highlighted paragraph just shows how steeped in sex based stereotypes the author is, if she really thinks that women who don't conform to expected beauty standards look like men.

Did India Willoughby write it?

ArrestHer · 06/02/2024 06:49

What a crock that is. What is obviously specially stupid is the science IS there. We understand in some depth the differences between male and female. In terms of musculature, hormonal impact, size difference, etc and also how this impacts strength, speed, and power.

what they don’t see in the literature of studies from older than say, 10 years ago, is a mention of trans and a trans lens put to this.

that’s the only reason I can see that these people are ignoring this.

that and the other option, they are just stupid and lacking in interest at anything, but especially the truth.

WarriorN · 06/02/2024 06:20

I've just seen a research article detailing sex differences on the running track before puberty.

Eventually enough proper science is going to have to filter through to prove that sex matters

AvacadoFieldsForever · 06/02/2024 06:15

ZiriForGood · 05/02/2024 18:01

If women cut their hair the same way as men, wore “men’s” clothes, and didn’t shave their legs and underarms, wear makeup, or pluck their eyebrows, they wouldn’t look nearly as different from men as they do.

Wow. Just wow.
Putting together all those things which don't define women.

This is what you get if you don’t allow input from other people.

You can feel the smugness emanating off - I bet they felt they’d really nailed it!

Helleofabore · 05/02/2024 23:02

I am sure that the author of this article thought that their arguments sounded wise and well supported at the time of writing. Yeah! Nah! I am just being very generous - it is bereft of fact or even believable theory.

At least this is novel.

We don’t gender-segregate because women can’t compete with men. Rather, we create sports that play to men’s typical strengths (football, for example) and value them over sports in which women are more likely to excel (balance beam). We then use this as proof that men are better at sports, and so men and women couldn’t possibly compete together.

In other words, we use sports to maintain the illusion that men and women are more different than they are alike. This reinforces a whole world outside of sport that values men over women and questions women’s abilities to lead and succeed.

I mean, seriously? The only reason that males do better at the overwhelming % of sports is because they are designed to suit male bodies? Well… sure. But that doesn’t mean that males and females can compete fairly…

But fuck, really??

If women cut their hair the same way as men, wore “men’s” clothes, and didn’t shave their legs and underarms, wear makeup, or pluck their eyebrows, they wouldn’t look nearly as different from men as they do.

We have to tell ourselves that gender makes us fundamentally so very different that we can justify entire social structures that give men dominance over women. Otherwise, why would we have gender-segregated bowling?

Really? Is it because women have different hair cuts, shave, where make up that we separate bowling competitions? That if women adopted the same hair as males, and shaved like males etc we would be competitive. With some powerful magic I expect.

Not because male people have more power in their arms to ensure male people have greater potential to knock down those pins… to get strikes … but because women wear make up.

Points for attempting to try something new though.

zanahoria · 05/02/2024 22:36

“Right now, we’re mostly working out of our deeply-held and rather largely unexamined assumptions about biologyand gender.”

I'm not

FaintlyMacabre · 05/02/2024 22:27

Think about it for a minute. If women cut their hair the same way as men, wore “men’s” clothes, and didn’t shave their legs and underarms, wear makeup, or pluck their eyebrows, they wouldn’t look nearly as different from men as they do

There's been some stiff competition but that might be the most stupid thing I’ve read on this topic so far.
And once again it’s the male body as default trope- women are just men with longer hair and lipstick. How can they not see the sexism?

RufustheFactualReindeer · 05/02/2024 18:24

Think about it for a minute. If women cut their hair the same way as men, wore “men’s” clothes, and didn’t shave their legs and underarms, wear makeup, or pluck their eyebrows, they wouldn’t look nearly as different from men as they do

what an absolute plonker !!!!

ZiriForGood · 05/02/2024 18:01

If women cut their hair the same way as men, wore “men’s” clothes, and didn’t shave their legs and underarms, wear makeup, or pluck their eyebrows, they wouldn’t look nearly as different from men as they do.

Wow. Just wow.
Putting together all those things which don't define women.

FrippEnos · 05/02/2024 17:21

It's the Michael Phelps argument

Those that use this argument forget that Phelps trained intensively and was winning by fractions of a second over his nearest rivals, not full seconds and definitely not pool lengths.
If Phelps had stopped training as Thomas did he would have been beaten by his rivals.

CuriousAlien · 05/02/2024 17:07

I was thinking about how so many of these articles on the internet feel devoid of context, so I looked up Forbes.

I looked on wikipedia and found a link to an article from a couple of years ago that described Forbes as an “under-edited group blog that’s a soft mark for grifters.”

https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism/

(Apparently Nieman Lab is a project at the school of journalism at Harvard University but that's as far down the source rabbithole I feel like going just now)

An incomplete history of Forbes.com as a platform for scams, grift, and bad journalism

That "rapper" accused of billions in crypto fraud was also a Forbes contributor. Is it finally time to move past the contributor network?

https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism

MagpiePi · 05/02/2024 17:06

It’s interesting that men aren’t taking over women’s gymnastics, I mean, you’d think all the spangly leotards and make up would be right up their street. I’m sure it’s nothing to do with things like flexibility which are different for men and women, it can only be that gymnastics is massively transphobic.

MagpiePi · 05/02/2024 17:02

CuriousAlien · 05/02/2024 15:18

That made me laugh.

So we don't have evidence to say that men have a biological advantage over women but we have also designed sports that men are magically better at.

Also calling for more sports like mixed doubles in tennis. But how do we know how to mix the teams? I think the bodies of the people involved might have something to do with it.

You do it the same way that US rowing (fully trans inclusive when it comes to women’s categories) did it for mixed crews - at least half of the crew have to be biological women.
So it’s fine for women to have to compete against men pretending to be women, but heaven forfend that men have to compete against them because it wouldn’t be fair. 🙄

WickedSerious · 05/02/2024 16:57

Absolute bilge.

Swipe left for the next trending thread