Now ‘Biological Women Will Never Win a Marathon – Ever

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

Ben Shapiro on the news that transgender males can compete as women without taking any steps to reduce testosterone, take hormones or surgery. It's amusing and shocking

The video is worth listening to, espcially the part where the Boston Marathon people claim that there are no physiological differences between females and transwomen #peakstupid

www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-morris/ben-shapiro-boston-marathon-trans-policy-now-biological-women-will-never-win

I read the transcript: can't cope with the hypertension listening to actual voices would cause. Very glad, of course, that he's saying it for what it is, and so clearly too, while saddened yet again that It's a man doing so. One happy day people might listen to women. But those doctors: when will they be called for some basic A&P lectures?

The video is worth listening to
Definitely- the only voice is Ben Shapiro's commenting on the statements.

Link to previous discussion about Boston marathon here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3219506-Boston-Marathon-2nd-version

God, thats so fucking depressing.

The reason why the thread linked says '2nd version' was because the first was deleted following successful complaints that the opening post was goady.
It's worthwhile noting the date as this was prior to MN publically taking their stand.
The original was a long thread and @shotsfired has a copy.

Reading the comments below the article, a few seem to be blaming feminists.

I didn't realise they had such large cash prizes for these events. Of course men are going to sign up knowing they have a far higher chance of winning in the women's race.

Wow CoCoCoconut, just wow! I mean if your friends would refuse to listen to a truthful reasoned position just because it came from the 'wrong' person, then I'm afraid to say your friends do not particularly value truth, reason and rationality. Is anyone particularly surprised we've ended up here? In fact we've done bloody well to not arrive here sooner!

Coco

"Ben Shapiro believes that racism is over"

No he doesn't and as a practising Jew he received the most antisemitic abuse during the 2016 election.

He is anti abortion and he doesn't believe in free healthcare, yes, which are both fairly standard US conservative views.

Look I don't agree with a LOT of his views but I don't think that's reason to simply dismiss people as bigots.

His views on feminism are based on the Libfem arguments supporting trans activism, pro-porn, pro prostitution, pro-'slut walks' etc. He was taking the piss out of 'feminism' last week because they were going nuts about a schoolgirl who was saying her rights were violated because she choose to wear a see through shirt to school without a bra. Viewing at from that angle, I can well understand why he thinks feminists are off the rail. I have heard him defending 'old style feminists, like the 2nd wavers'.

As I say, I disagree with him on many things but he has reasonable approaches to most arguments and is interesting. He is NOT a bigot and he is not racist.

And he watching him take on trans activists is a sight to behold.

But yeh, it's some parallel universe that I find myself listening to right wingers

Coco
" I would not in a million years expect to convince a fellow progressive or a liberal feminist to rethink their position by suggesting they listen to someone like Shapiro."

I had missed that part of your post. There's your problem right there. Those who call themselves 'progressives' follow the de facto party line and use not critical thinking skills whatsoever. If it's deemed 'progressive, that's it, it should not be questioned. I have NO idea WHO decides WHAT is progressive right enough. Find out that and we might solve identity politics

And LibFems are all about the men pleasing. Sorry

So, no, I do not wish to be either 'progressive' or LibFem'

The feminists objecting to the legislative reification of trans ideology are, by and large, progressive, pro-lgb rights, anti-racist, believers in social justice.

The most effective way for trans activists to shut those voices down and prevent libfems and progressives from listening to feminists' concerns, is to cast them as bigots and align them with homophobes and racists. It has worked. It is why so few progressives will open admit to seeing the ideology and its practical outworkings as problematic: because they don't want to be mistaken for right wingers.

So having right wingers make the case on our behalf seems a flawed approach to me, because it plays right into the false narrative that the gender critical position is a right wing / regressive viewpoint and is more likely to push potential allies away than to bring them around to a point of view that centres the concerns of women and girls.

Agree with that or disagree, but it's something that bears consideration I think. Nothing wow, just wow! about it.

Actually Crit i agree totally with CoCo. Of course it matters who said it. If Donald Trump or Nigel Farage suddenly declared themselves gender critical, no I would not want to be associated with them and I would judge others who did.
In my view you lose credibility by associating yourself with right wing groups on this issue. Fair enough if you’re cool with that... I just had the same debate on another thread where people were extolling the virtues of Spiked Online. Nobody agreed with me there really so I am guessing that for most people it is not an issue and the goal is just getting the message out there.

Agree 100% with your last post CoCo

Ok Coco but actually I'm for bringing it our into the cold light of day and I don't really give a fuck a fuck who talks about it.

"It is why so few progressives will open admit to seeing the ideology and its practical outworkings as problematic: because they don't want to be mistaken for right wingers."

• I agree, and that's what's wrong with 'progressive' and it's THAT which needs to be challenged, progressives' rank cowardice, not trying to control the narrative of right wingers or to automatically choose the opposite side to whichever position they occupy.

The problem with that view Susan is that you are allowing your views to be pre-determined to be the opposite of those who you perceive to be your enemy.

It's bloody stupid. Sure you might disagree with them on many or most, issues, but disagreeing on principle is honestly the most intellectually dishonest thing I have ever heard.

Assigned if you read my post as suggesting you should want to be a libfem, you misread it. I did imply that I consider myself a progressive, which I mean in the sense of having political and social beliefs which favour equal rights, enfranchisement, social justice. I didn't say I was a libfem or want anyone else to be one.

The point was that these are the people - those who think they're championing the oppressed by centring trans concerns and throwing women under the bus - who are likely, if they think critically about the issues and where the power and privilege really is, to come around to a gender critical understanding of feminism. But they're not likely to listen to Shapiro.

You seem to think I'm saying they shouldn't listen. I'm saying they won't, and therefore I wish someone with a better overall reputation for caring about social justice would make these points, because then they might. I'm surprised that you think that's such a problematic comment to make.

But I think the right wingers are coming at it from a different angle. Yes ultimately they don’t like self-ID, but for a different reason to feminists. They certainly don’t believe that gender is a social construct that harms women for instance.

Hypothetically though, is there a limit to who you would publicly support on this point? Nigel Farage? Katie Hopkins? Or is it just whether they are broadly agreeing with your overall goal, even if they disagree with the reasons why?

OK, Coco. point taken. But I do still disagree, We need to have a debate and it needs to include all 'sides'. I'm for getting it out there and at this point I don't care who talks about it, because that's better than it not being discussed at all.

Besides, I enjoy listening to Shapiro and other right wingers. I enjoy my views being challenged.

That's what's wrong with 'Progressives': they seem to simply do as they are told. Fuck that.

I'm not publicaly supporting him Susan. I'm putting his view out there as valid and interesting while pointing out that politically I generally have different views. I'm not 'aligning' myself with him. But I can agree with him on some issues. I probably will find some issue to agree with Farage and Katie Hopkins too, if I tried hard enough.

"And LibFems are all about the men pleasing. Sorry."

Why are you sorry? I never said I was a libfem, nor did I suggest you should be one .

I did imply that I consider myself a progressive, by which I mean that my political and social beliefs broadly favour equal rights, enfranchisement, the pursuit of social justice and the protection of marginalised and oppressed groups. Currently, championing the trans rights agenda is considered a politically 'progressive' viewpoint. I disagree that it is, because it undermines equal opportunity and protections for women and girls. I think if others with left-leaning beliefs think critically about this issue, about where the power and privilege really lies, they might come around to a viewpoint that women's and girls' rights need protecting. And that an ideology that equates sex with personality traits is in fact regressive and antifeminist. But they're not likely to listen to Shapiro.

So I wish these points were being made by someone who couldn't be so easily dismissed as a right winger with right wing views. It further reinforced the false narrative that wanting to protect women's sports (and safe spaces etc.) is a right wing view.

I am surprised that you found my comment so problematic.

From the article:

“I mean, the failure to distinguish between sex and gender is clearly an incredible thing. And the fact that so many in the scientific community have pretended to buy into this – and I say pretend because they do know better – there is not a doctor alive in the United States who does not know the difference between a man and a woman biologically, and yet they act as though these distinctions mean nothing when it comes to real world consequences as long as the man believes he is a woman or vice versa.

“‘ABC quote[d a] doctor from [the] Boston-based LGBT health and advocacy center who insists that there's “no physiologic advantage to being assigned male at birth.”’

Assigned I cross posted with your last reply to me. Wasn't trying to keep arguing the point! But did need to clarify that I am not a libfem defending libfem views

Tribalism is killing our ability to consider ideas properly and take arguments on their merit.

No I got you Coco, cheers