I’m sure you’ve all seen the story about the man who wants to be a woman who is competing against women in the pool, because the people in charge won’t act like sane adults. It’s all kinds of stupid, but to add insult to injury, even conservative outlets like The Daily Wire refer to him as a “biological male” — as if there’s some other kind.
We have to stop giving ground to the woke morons.
QUOTE: We have to stop giving ground to the woke morons.
I agree, there is only ONE type of male. Yet, like it or not, we live in a culture where people identify with and communicate about all types of sex/gender preferences. Sex/gender fluidity isn’t a real thing but the discussion about it is a part of the reality of our times. Given that, in some situations, it might be apropos to use the term “biological male”. Not to cede ground in some silly culture war but to ensure there is communication clarity. In the same way, there really isn’t a “transgender” but we use the term to help communicate clearly about those associated with that category.
That said, this isn’t my hill to die on so I don’t have a strong opinion. I just think there are bigger cultural issues to deal with and we don’t have to waste energy attempting to establish a solid line of demarcation on the term “biological male”.
I think I agree with this. I see Greg’s point and am very sympathetic to it, but there needs to be a way to talk about these issues and it gets a little ridiculous to say “transgender woman who is actually a man” or something of that nature, every single time we need to refer to Lia Thomas, just as an example. Not acknowledging the question of gender vs. sex in a given situation also opens up the question for litigation every time it’s discussed, and a hat tip to the fact that not everyone agrees, is not the same thing as acknowledging that people on the other side of the question are right. Acknowledging that it’s debated is not the same thing as admitting that it’s truly debatable.
When I’m talking to my like-minded friends I freely refer to a certain local public figure as a “woman” or as “she” despite that person’s denial of that reality. But not at least acknowledging that the person in question perceives herself as transgender/nonbinary when referring to her in a public forum, would just derail every conversation into an argument that is endlessly rehashed, and make it impossible to say anything else about her (such as whether her policies as a local public official are constructive or the opposite). And not acknowledging that Lia Thomas positions himself and competes as a woman, would be to ignore the very reason we discuss him. To say “biological male” neatly covers the issue in two words.
In a few years this stuff will seem like much ado about nothing.
Women will just have to learn to sit down and shut up and not care that we’ve effectively been eliminated from any success in athletic competition. What a day that will be.
Women need to stand up and demand that this foolishness stops, otherwise the whole concept of women’s sports will be destroyed. One possible strategy is for women to refuse to compete in events that have men in them.
Touche! Albeit we don’t need to get our knickers in a twist about some terminology, per your facetious point, it’s still important to recognize men and women are different…especially biologically. There needs to be resistance to the notion that just because some men “think” they are women, doesn’t make them one nor eligible to participate in sporting events designated for biological women (in which their biological composition could give them an advantage).
There will always be a few disgruntled people, both women and men, but I just don’t think that many will care about the matter. That’s just how things go in my experience. It’s comparable to racial integration, which was a hot-button issue in the late 60s and early 70s (not only in the South), but very few find it a problem now. Of course there are some who do, as I even know a person or two who staunchly believe that interracial marriage is wrong. But don’t we regard such people as backward?
“People in the past were wrong about being opposed to a change therefore regardless of what the change is, we shouldn’t care.” That’s some Carlson-quality logic there.
I didn’t say anything about whether people should or shouldn’t care. They just won’t.
Of course I am no doubt a Marxist for making that observation, as the great Tucker Carlson, that prodigious fount of wisdom from the right, might say.
https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/university-pay-400-000-professor-134249803.html
Good to see common sense prevailed! No one should be “forced” to comply with intolerance…especially when the intolerant is supposed to be an advocate for tolerance. It’s also good the university had to suffer financial consequences for its part in enabling intolerance. Let that be an example that one group’s “preference” shouldn’t be permitted to wrongfully infringe upon another group’s rights.
“Public universities should welcome intellectual and ideological diversity, where all students and professors can engage in meaningful discussions without compromising their core beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. “Dr. Meriwether rightly defended his freedom to speak and stay silent, and not conform to the university’s demand for uniformity of thought. We commend the university for ultimately agreeing to do the right thing, in keeping with its reason for existence as a marketplace of ideas.”