The non-PC PC Thread

[Abby Normal]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...droidApp_Other

I thought this was an interesting and unhysterical article about trans women in sport (as mentioned by Abby in his post above).

thanks for posting diddles
interesting article, I hadnt see that before. its germaine to the whole point I was making in regards to the artists comments and that the issue she was bringing up is a tough and serious question that many in sports/sports orgs are struggling with now.

'However, I cannot accept people's unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born and deserve to be extended the same rights as if they were born as such.”

I guess such subtleties are lost on some people and such orgs as the RA who in my mind unfairly and kneejerk punished this artist for bringing up this type of valid and reasonable question.

[etenguy]

The problem is that the woman who wrote it will probably get burnt in effigy for doing so. Why is the above issue even an issue? It looks like science can’t at this moment in time prevent a formerly male athlete getting a big physical advantage when competing in women’s events. So until science can ensure that no advantage exists then the athlete shouldn’t be allowed to compete against women. It’s unfortunate for the athlete of course but that’s life (at the moment at least)

thanks for posting diddles
interesting article, I hadnt see that before. its germaine to the whole point I was making in regards to the artists comments and that the issue she was bringing up is a tough and serious question that many in sports/sports orgs are struggling with now.

'However, I cannot accept people's unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born and deserve to be extended the same rights as if they were born as such.”

I guess such subtleties are lost on some people and such orgs as the RA who in my mind unfairly and kneejerk punished this artist for bringing up this type of valid and reasonable question.

Hi Herlock, Hi Abby

The issue of fairness in sport is very complex and you may or may not know that some women (born and lived their whole lives as women) who happen to have greater levels of testosterone than others are being required to take drugs to reduce their testosterone levels in order that they can compete.

Another article from the same newspaper has a more in depth analysis of some of the issues about fairness in sport involving testosterone and sex which you may find interesting. It challenges some of the assertions made in the article Ms Diddles posted:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-sports-bodies

Regardless of the complexities raised by the two articles, I would argue that denying someone's identity on the basis that it may raise issues that need resolving with regard to fairness in sport is disproportionate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Eten,

Whilst I’m certainly not a scientist and so am nowhere near qualified to debate the technicalities it certainly appears that things are a long way from being clear cut, even amongst the experts. As the first article said, it’s not just a matter of testosterone but there’s the issue of athletes who are born men having greater muscle mass, bone density and strength. And so until these issues are ‘solved’ to everyone’s satisfaction I don’t see how a decision can be made to allow an athlete to compete who might be gaining a very real and significant advantage. I accept that this would be heartbreaking to the athletes in question though but we surely have to consider all athletes and the heartbreak that other athletes also would experience if they lost out on a medal or even a place at the Olympics to someone that had a proven advantage. I don’t see this as disproportionate Eten. I see it as a matter of fairness to all. This might be one of those occasions where, at the moment, it’s simply impossible to be fair to all. If anything is disproportionate I’d say that it would be to potentially disadvantage the many in favour of the very few (or the individual.) I can understand the sensitivity of the subject though but in a case like this where the science appears to be still under debate I think that fairness to the majority has to trump the fairness of the very few.

[Svensson]

I guess what Eten is saying here is that there is no need to police gender-identity in recreational or non-elite sport which makes up 99.99+% of all sporting activity in the western world. The point of joining a sunday-league team is to get some exercise, get to do something that you are good at and enjoy and have a bit of fun at the same time. I can guarantee that no sporting careers will be spoilt by transgender issues is the Kent County Cricket Women's league.

On the other end of the spectrum, in Elite sport, different sports have different ways of confirming genders in restricted categories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ve...tion_in_sports), which has moved well beyond just lifting the skirts of the athletes to see what's there. For the wider population however, this is a non-issue unless culture wars of any kind are your raison d'etre.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The RA have now apologised to the artist.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/jun/23/royal-academy-of-arts-apologises-to-jess-de-wahls-in-transphobia-row

[Abby Normal]

The RA have now apologised to the artist.

https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...ransphobia-row

hi herlock
thanks for posting and good for them. and well said in your previous post-your much more eloquent than me. Having read the article, i notice that they had also called her tansphobic along with not working with her and pulling her art from the gift stores. I hadnt noticed that before and that is totally over the top in light of her comments. They should reinstate her work for sale in the gift shops as well IMHO. but glad cooler heads prevailed--its a tough issue especially when it comes to the competition in sports angle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi herlock
thanks for posting and good for them. and well said in your previous post-your much more eloquent than me. Having read the article, i notice that they had also called her tansphobic along with not working with her and pulling her art from the gift stores. I hadnt noticed that before and that is totally over the top in light of her comments. They should reinstate her work for sale in the gift shops as well IMHO. but glad cooler heads prevailed--its a tough issue especially when it comes to the competition in sports angle.

Hi Abby,

I certainly wouldn’t argue that these are difficult and very sensitive issues. I’d also agree with earlier comments (I think by Caz and Roger) that things are probably being exacerbated by heated language on both sides. From my own point of view (and yes, I do have a bee-in-my-bonnet about the extreme dangers of political correctness and the curtailing of Free Speech) I just wish that people wouldn’t resort so quickly to taking ‘offense’ with accusations and name calling. I really dislike the phrase Hate Speech. There are faults on all sides no doubt though. Eten made the fair point that the RA had a right to disassociate themselves from someone whose opinions didn’t align with their ethos. Another question to consider though would be in regard to religious beliefs. I’m a non-believer as you know Abby and you are a believer. You will probably remember a couple of controversial incidents from recent history. I seem to recall Christian B&B owners being unwilling to allow a same-sex couple to share a room because it went against their beliefs. There was also the person that refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple because, he also said, it went against his religious beliefs. How do we call that one? Obviously not all Christians would take that stance but those individuals did. Do we call them homophobic or do we say that they have every right to say who stays at their B&B or who they make cakes for? We’re the people that called them homophobes using Hate Speech against someone with strong religious beliefs? I’m certainly not claiming to have the answers. To be honest, as it stands, I can’t see any resolutions. Battle lines appear to have been drawn. Difficult issues can’t be addressed by hysterical name calling.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I certainly wouldn’t argue that these are difficult and very sensitive issues. I’d also agree with earlier comments (I think by Caz and Roger) that things are probably being exacerbated by heated language on both sides. From my own point of view (and yes, I do have a bee-in-my-bonnet about the extreme dangers of political correctness and the curtailing of Free Speech) I just wish that people wouldn’t resort so quickly to taking ‘offense’ with accusations and name calling. I really dislike the phrase Hate Speech. There are faults on all sides no doubt though. Eten made the fair point that the RA had a right to disassociate themselves from someone whose opinions didn’t align with their ethos. Another question to consider though would be in regard to religious beliefs. I’m a non-believer as you know Abby and you are a believer. You will probably remember a couple of controversial incidents from recent history. I seem to recall Christian B&B owners being unwilling to allow a same-sex couple to share a room because it went against their beliefs. There was also the person that refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple because, he also said, it went against his religious beliefs. How do we call that one? Obviously not all Christians would take that stance but those individuals did. Do we call them homophobic or do we say that they have every right to say who stays at their B&B or who they make cakes for? We’re the people that called them homophobes using Hate Speech against someone with strong religious beliefs? I’m certainly not claiming to have the answers. To be honest, as it stands, I can’t see any resolutions. Battle lines appear to have been drawn. Difficult issues can’t be addressed by hysterical name calling.

hi herlock
yes im a beleiver (in my own way) and belong to a church and go to church regularly. One of the reasons I belong to the church I do (its Episcopal btw) is that they are open/progressive about those issues- and welcome and have openly gay couples. we also have female/married pastors. the issues you mentioned are again very tough- personally I think they are wrong, but if it goes against their religious beliefs... i dont know i struggle with that. I will say though that in a perfect world i would hope their prospective religions would change that belief. you cant help how your born-whether that be being born in the wrong sex body or being born being attracted to the same sex. again I would hope those particular churches/religions will one day understand that and change those ideas.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi herlock
yes im a beleiver (in my own way) and belong to a church and go to church regularly. One of the reasons I belong to the church I do (its Episcopal btw) is that they are open/progressive about those issues- and welcome and have openly gay couples. we also have female/married pastors. the issues you mentioned are again very tough- personally I think they are wrong, but if it goes against their religious beliefs... i dont know i struggle with that. I will say though that in a perfect world i would hope their prospective religions would change that belief. you cant help how your born-whether that be being born in the wrong sex body or being born being attracted to the same sex. again I would hope those particular churches/religions will one day understand that and change those ideas.

Well said Abby

[etenguy]

Hi Abby,

Eten made the fair point that the RA had a right to disassociate themselves from someone whose opinions didn’t align with their ethos. Another question to consider though would be in regard to religious beliefs. I’m a non-believer as you know Abby and you are a believer. You will probably remember a couple of controversial incidents from recent history. I seem to recall Christian B&B owners being unwilling to allow a same-sex couple to share a room because it went against their beliefs. There was also the person that refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple because, he also said, it went against his religious beliefs. How do we call that one? Obviously not all Christians would take that stance but those individuals did. Do we call them homophobic or do we say that they have every right to say who stays at their B&B or who they make cakes for? We’re the people that called them homophobes using Hate Speech against someone with strong religious beliefs? I’m certainly not claiming to have the answers. To be honest, as it stands, I can’t see any resolutions. Battle lines appear to have been drawn. Difficult issues can’t be addressed by hysterical name calling.

Hi Herlock

That's a difficult dilemma. When does someone's right to do business with whom they choose be constrained by legal requirements not to discriminate. I read ahead and I don't think I can come up with a better answer than Abby, so repeating that below.

hi herlock
yes im a beleiver (in my own way) and belong to a church and go to church regularly. One of the reasons I belong to the church I do (its Episcopal btw) is that they are open/progressive about those issues- and welcome and have openly gay couples. we also have female/married pastors. the issues you mentioned are again very tough- personally I think they are wrong, but if it goes against their religious beliefs... i dont know i struggle with that. I will say though that in a perfect world i would hope their prospective religions would change that belief. you cant help how your born-whether that be being born in the wrong sex body or being born being attracted to the same sex. again I would hope those particular churches/religions will one day understand that and change those ideas.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

That's a difficult dilemma. When does someone's right to do business with whom they choose be constrained by legal requirements not to discriminate. I read ahead and I don't think I can come up with a better answer than Abby, so repeating that below.

Hi Eten,

Yes, I think Abby just about sums it up.

[Svensson]

right vs. right cases are always difficult (as opposed to right vs. wrong ). However, religion should not be a factor in a secular society and almost all western nations are governed by secular laws. the case of the baker and the gay wedding cake issue was settled correctly IMO as you can not force someone to do business with someone they don't want to do business with. No religious considerations are needed to come to the correct verdict.

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/ra-apology-jess-de-wahls-transgender-row-institutions-give-into-mob-b942431.html?amp

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/24/entertainment/james-corden-spill-your-guts-petition-trnd/index.html

[Herlock Sholmes]

A teacher and his family have to go into hiding.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-56524850