A space for respectful dialogue about sex, gender and diversity

[Tandora]

This is a thread for posters who want to talk and share a diverse range of opinions about sex, gender, being gender non-conforming and/or trans, and public policy. It is to learn from each other; to engage in a productive exchange, and to hear different sides of the story.

It is not a space for bullying and insults. Please do not join if your intention is to control the conversation and undermine those who disagree with you.

However, even now, what female boxer has been given such prestigious access to the fashion and film industry? Not one that I remember. There really is something asymmetrical happening with some of these male athletes with DSDs in their access to investment after they win compared to female athletes in their events / countries.

@Helleofabore - to be fair, people with a high enough profile will get access to the fashion and film industry regardless.

If Khelif's profile hadn't been raised so much by the outcry over their sex, then it is unlikely they would have been offered those opportunities.

Fatima moved to France at 7. She did not play football in a mixed team as a teenager in Algeria.

Yes merrymouse. I find it all very confusing that so little evidence has ever been posted by those who claim to have it. I think I said on another post, it is not just one poster who has done this, there is at least a couple who claim to be academic experts in this field. There are others who claim other expertise in the field but can also not put forward robust and evidenced facts to support their claims.

Everything I post on this board is (1) my honestly held opinion, (2) based on a firm belief that men cannot be feminists, all men can do is try to amplify the opinions of women who fight for women (and you need to spend A LOT of time listening to women), (3) written in a way that tries to never be deliberately deceptive, but does not advertize my sex.

I chose a username very deliberately - a name used by both sexes but more often by men.

I wish I had not used the word "stupid" but I stand by my belief that women who choose mixed sex spaces are either naive or they are failing to demonstrate wisdom. That said I should, I suppose, be open to the possibility that there are some women who choose mixed sex spaces for very rational reasons (but I struggle to consider what those might be).

I am a man.

Other women's profiles have been raised after their wins at the Olympics, can you name any other female Olympic medalist from the 2024 games that has had the same opportunities?

It is not just about raising profiles. I suspect there is some other dynamic going on and I actually don't think it is a healthy one for Khelif either.

IME on here women posting with male usernames are also regularly posting in a way that they're declaring their experience as a woman so it's not hard to tell that they're actually female. There are an increasing number of posters with and without male.usernames that have identified themselves as men on here and have got very comfortable being casually misogynistic towards women they think it's "acceptable" to aim it at and I wish they'd realise this isn't the place for any men to be calling women stupid, girls etc. sorry for the rant but I've seen it a few times in the last day or two.

It is perhaps a sign of my lack of interest in the Olympics and massive interest in women's sex based rights (and truth and reality and LGB rights, and men's equal though less practicallt important sex based rights), but I honestly don't think I could name a single gold medallist from the last Olympics other than Khelif.

I don't think that it's pure coincidence that the only gold medal winner I can name is male, I think it reflects sexism in society.

I 100% take your point about my use of language, and would take it back if I could.

On the other hand "stupid" is simply a word that means "having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense". IMHO it is clear that many men and many women "have or show a great lack of intelligence or common sense" and one example is (some of the) women who choose mixed sex spaces. (Choose, not use).

Women are quite capable of having discussions on our issues without the arrogance and entitlement of men thinking they simple must come on here and share their opinion when they don't even believe men can be feminists though. You amplify your own opinion on here a LOT while being derisive towards women. You also don't believe men can be feminists, and yet you feel very entitled to take up a lot of space on this feminist board while allowing posters to assume you're female, by not "advertising" your sex as you say. I think your opinion on women's spaces needs some self reflection perhaps.

I don't think it would be unlawful, because it would not be excluding anyone on the grounds of a protected characteristic they hold.

One of the lawyers on our threads said you could have an association for Ginger-Haired People. 'Not having ginger hair' is not a PC. It will exclude some people with the PCs of Sex and/or Gender Reassignment but it is not excluding them because they hold those PCs.

But IANAL and when Michael Foran starts talking about this sort of thing I have to make flow charts to understand what he means😁

It's a well known phenomenon, isn't it? There is huge celebration and publicity for a man who wins something while performing as a woman - where an actual woman winner of the women's category would have been ignored by the media. The only thing women performing as men are ever publicly celebrated for is when the media use them for exciting headlines pretending that a man has had a baby.

I'm not going to get into a discussion with you explaining why a man calling a woman stupid is misogynistic while you play dumb. And if you genuinely care about women's rights you would simply take the note onboard. I'm not interested in discussing with you further and I hope you won't continue displaying your usual male arrogance of arguing you meant no harm rather than self reflecting.

Yesterday (21.30-sh) @OneAmberFinch mentioned she had come across mixed-sex groups with a name (e.g. "Code Gals") and maybe a logo or publicity material designed to appeal to those of a feminine persuasion (i.e. not me 🤢), and a FAQ saying that anyone who identifies as a woman is especially welcome. So formally these are not single-sex groups. The membership would be self-selecting, and although it wouldn't be possible to exclude the kind of men whose other favourite hobby might be bare-knuckle boxing, it's hard to imagine they would want to join.

Hmm, Jamie - I was thinking it would be on similar lines to a common interest club where most of the people with the interest are one sex but people of the other sex can join if they wish. You can't join the brass band unless you play a brass instrument, you can't join the gender identity club unless you have a gender identity, you can't join the boxing club unless you box. But maybe it trips over the TRA's own assertion that gender identity is a naturally occurring phenomenon with a strong correlation to sex and thereby becomes indirect sex discrimination.

Also, if I have ever posted anything that declared that I have experience as a woman then (1) I apologize massively, (2) I am surprised, and (3) I am an absolute a-hole for doing it.

Looks like the thread is going to run out and @Tandora still hasn't returned after that passive aggressive abusive post... funny that, almost like the Tandora's arguments and behaviour are both entirely unreasonable, and dare I say disrespectful 😂

It's interesting you had to write three paragraphs before clarifying to the poster who said as far as she knew you were female that you're a man and why you regularly enter women's discussions where people are going to assume you're female without declaring yourself as a man. While you may not think you're on here claiming experience as a woman, you need to realise the amount of space you feel entitled to take up on this board (you argue a LOT) on here, that people are going to assume you're female because no man who claims to want to amplify the voices of women would centre himself so much so often on here.

im sorry to say I agree with this.

Re IK

Keep in mind that DSDs are a genetic condition. They appear much more in certain communities and certain families.

In these communities there will therefore be a greater awareness of DSDs.

If your cousin has a DSD and you know your great uncle had a DSD, it stands to reason you'd not be terribly surprised if your 'daughter' turned out to have a DSD.

Having done a lot of tracing of my family's DNA matches it's fascinating to see how some communities have a lot of movement in and out, whilst others are much more limited and you get much higher rates of people marrying within the community to the point that they do become genetically distinguishable.

There was an update on Ancestry this week, which is now fairly accurately identifying regions of origin within the UK and this is likely to get much more refined over time. I have noted that certain surnames are most definitely from certain areas to the point I can now see some and go 'why am I seeing a Cheshire surname in Durham?' for example. I think it will eventually start to get to county level or town identification being fairly possible for some places. The jokes about coming from X and having six fingers are closer to home than you might want to admit. With that in mind, you might actually expect something similar with DSDs.

I don't respect their worldview. I respect their right to believe nonsense if they want to, and to act accordingly if it doesn't harm others. I wouldn't employ them as air traffic controllers.

If I were able to "pass" as a woman in person I would not, ever, under any circumstances, apply for a speaking engagement at a feminist conference as to do so would take up a slot which could otherwise have been occupied by an actual woman.

Whilst I acknowledge that every second spent reading a post of mine is time that a woman could have spent reading a post by a woman, I do not believe that posting respectfully here, in a way which does not seek to deceive (but does seek to blend in - ie not shout "man here" in every word I type), is the same as taking a finite resource from women.

You're just continuing to show that as a man you can't take a note, when given to you by a woman on a subject you claim to support women in, to be quiet and reflect on whether a discussion needs your input. That's not posting respectfully.

I think that the men who post on here while making it clear that they are men are being respectful and bring an interesting perspective. They generally make specific points rather than trying to dominate a thread, unless it is a thread that they have started obvs.
I have to admit I feel deceived when a poster has not made it clear they are a man. I totally accept that it doesn't break any rules and I can't ask for my money back but I just wonder "Why did you not want us to know?"

Nothing NEEDS my input. I believe, however, that my input is respectful and at times adds a little something. It is also a part of a process which involves me listening to women, responding and learning, hopefully in a way that enables me to become a better ally to women over time.

I am trying to do all sorts of things to try to end TQ+ ideology, for the benefit of truth, reality, men and LGB, but especially for the benefit of women. A huge part of what I know on the matter - knowledge which is vital if I wish to play my small part in fighting for women's rights - is a result of being on this board.

@WarrenTofficier

IK was 'discovered' while playing football, with the boys in a society in which the girls 'are rarely seen' outside and don't play physical games with boys.

Girls playing football with boys in Algeria, is not unusual - see my previous post.

But even if someone has spent their entire life mistakenly believing they are female the minute they discover that they are in fact a male is the minute they need to step away from female sport. This may be very sad for them and I'm not without sympathy for someone in that situation but 1000s of aspiring young athletes have to give up on their sporting dreams because of illness or injury and we don't restructure events to accommodate them.

I agree with this and have been very clear that I think she should not be allowed to compete in womens sports. Nowhere have I siggested that sport should be restructured to accommodate. From my first post on this thread:

I do believe that with the DSD being identified, she shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sports - mostly due to the safety aspect (which is a shame, but no different to someone who has to give up their sport for any other health reason)

What I take issue with, is the fact that people expected her, as a child, who has been given a life changing diagnosis (or perhaps hasn't - we don't know if she was told or not) to understand the implications of it for her sport, stand up to all of the people (males) around her who are encouraging her and supporting her to compete (and have likely manipulated her into that position to start with) and give up on a dream which would drag her family out of poverty.

To blame her for it and then insist on calling her male when she hasn't made the choice to live as a male herself is beyond cruel.

If evidence comes out in the future that she had full knowledge of her condition and it's implications, had received psychological and medical support and still decided to compete, then my position will change, but until that point, I will maintain that while she shouldn't be boxing, she has every right to identify as female.