this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
1369 points (99.9% liked)
LGBTQ+
2713 readers
4 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The link was to disprove the previous claim and provide at least one example of women in sport calling for protection.
Whether or not they are justified in asking for a balance between saftey and fairness is a can of worms I'm leaving closed.
All I see is another progressive organisation that has been infiltrated by TERFs. The page you link too reeks of their tactics and arguments. The fact they're based on TERF Island (UK) says a lot as well.
For the women involved that aren't TERFs, I think it can be all too easy to subscribe to their arguments when you've worked so hard to achieve fairness and equality. But the conflation of trans women and cis men as equals, without any scientific proof, leads me to believe that even they are being deceptive here. I mean, the TERF tactic of denying trans men their identities also shows up towards the end:
Like, I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair to use people who dislike trans people to prove your point. You're fair and reasonable to not want to open that can of worms. All I'm saying is that finding a definitively anti-transgender reference doesn't prove your point, because there's no way to seperate the TERF from the science in that article. Meanwhile, I have never seen an Olympic-class athlete complain about transgender women in sports until Angela Carini. And even she has turned around and profusely apologised for what she said:
So, I dunno, I don't really think you've disproven that claim at all.
Ok. I think I can provide an example and avoid any sensitive topics. Co-ed soccer has different rules (e.g no slide tackles) because women have asked to be protected.
That wasn't the claim I was countering. A more general statement was made.
~~Olympic-class~~ women ~~athletes~~ have never asked for protection ~~from transgender women~~ in sports.
The original statement made was too broad.