No. I just didn't feel the need to repeat what I'd already said at post #16.
Why bother seperating mens and women's sports?
- Thread starter Ken L
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
Think you find it will be regarded as a humanity, thus not a science, thus subject to varioys competing theories that aren't subject to scientific proofs. So when you say that someone is ignoring the 'science', I'm afraid you are wrong, they are disagreeing with a sociological theory, which is subtly different.
That's fair enough, so I went back and re-read it.
"It's written into the DNA in every cell in their body and it has been phenotypically expressed in terms of skeleton, muscle mass and brain development throughout their lives - they are a man."
It's this bit I take issue with. It really isn't that simple, and simply pretending it is isn't helpful.
I do agree it's somewhat more complicated when it comes to sport. I firmly believe that trans people have every right to live their lives as the gender they identify as, right down the toilets and changing rooms they use (which is obviously relevant to sport). But when it comes to the question of competing in contact sports, it's not really fair for one women's rugby side to have a 6ft, 12 stone team member when the other doesn't. That's obviously an extreme example, but my point is that in principle at least, it's something that needs to be considered.
Incorrect. Or are you really going to sit there and argue that anthropology isn't a science?
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 2,814
- Reaction score
- 1,040
Isn't anthropology a humanity?
Social constructs are a definition used in sociology, which isn't a science. Anthropology also isn't a science; particularly clutural and social anthropology, which is relevant here. Biological anthropology draws on science, biology obviously, but isn't a science in itself.
Social sciences aren't scientific, which is why they generally sit in the humanities. In the same way a guinea pig doesn't make great bacon. :hat:
Were getting dragged off topic here, I simply needed to correct Thumper when he said someone, Ken I think, was ignoring the science. He wasn't. He is disagreeing with a theory. In terms of 'social constructs' there isn't science to ignore.
Social sciences aren't scientific, which is why they generally sit in the humanities. In the same way a guinea pig doesn't make great bacon. :hat:
Were getting dragged off topic here, I simply needed to correct Thumper when he said someone, Ken I think, was ignoring the science. He wasn't. He is disagreeing with a theory. In terms of 'social constructs' there isn't science to ignore.
A subject that has received quite a bit of coverage of late and which is a side issue to sport.
I don't agree with the "solution" in place in many newer UK schools that now have unisex toilet facilities.
I also don't want men who simply state that they identify as women in public toilets with young girls.
Post transition individuals are not a problem.
No, it's the study of human behaviour, societies, and cultures, both past and present. It is a social science, but frankly the "distinction" between hard and social sciences and the subsequent undervaluing of social science is nonsense. And this coming from someone with a degree in the "hard" sciences.
The social sciences are as reliant upon underlying hard evidence as any other.
I must admit, I do think the possibility of someone choosing to display as trans just to get a sneak peak in a toilet is very low. I have trans friends and I know a bit about the **** thwy have to put up with on a day to day basis; no one is going to choose that just get their jollies off.
The toilet thing; I'm genuinely interested as to why you don't think it's a good idea?
I take it that you're referring to my schools comment.
From what I understand, toilets in these schools have floor to ceiling walls and doors to prevent peeking.
There are significant risks there, given that a child could be on the floor and in distress, self harming or in a diabetic coma with nobody being aware of their situation.
The seat up/seat down thing will get out of hand with the most likely outcome being that he boys will simply pee on the seat.
A shared facility creates an unsupervised area for everything from name calling to sexual assault.
It's just another way of emasculating boys when we already label then and drug them if they don't behave like little girls.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 2,814
- Reaction score
- 1,040
The toilets could be split up in 'seating' and 'standing' activities type toilets. That would be a function division.
Glad we agree; it's not a science.
I'm not demeaning anything. If you scroll back you will see referenced that it wasn't a science like the way economics isn't a science; a subject I know and respect greatly. My partner is a criminologist, also not a science.
The reason it was important to distinguish between them in this debate is because you claimed someone was ''ignoring the science'. They were not. If they were ignoring gravity in a discussion about apples, then you could say that they were ignoring the science (unless they came up with an experiment proving it didn't exist, or something, which would be pretty cool for a beer forum).
I'm sure someone with a degree in 'hard science can see why that is an important distinction, that has absolutely nothing to do with demeaning the non science subject under discussion.
A social science is a science. You are making arbitrary distinctions in an attempt to undermine a conclusion you don't agree with. If you'd prefer, I'm happy to use the word "evidence" rather than "science" in this situation, but the point stands. If your position is not based on, or worse is directly counter to, the available academic evidence then I can't see why anyone ought to take it seriously.
Show me where I have 'not agreed' with the WHO link you posted. As you won't be able to, I think that undermines the rest of your post as to my intention.
I suspect you are arguing with a picture in your mind off what I believe that is based on your own prejudices, rather than what I am typing, which makes debating rather unsatisfactory...
.... and unscientific. :smile6:
I suspect you are arguing with a picture in your mind off what I believe that is based on your own prejudices, rather than what I am typing, which makes debating rather unsatisfactory...
.... and unscientific. :smile6:
Entirely possible, and if that's the case then I'm sorry. It appeared to me that you were agreeing with Ken's comments on sex and gender.
If our disagreement is solely based on whether social sciences count as sciences, then I've interpreted this wrongly.
Wouter
Well-Known Member
There are no seperated gender sports. Generally woman can partake in any competition dominated by men.
There are special woman categories. But there are no men categories.
There are special woman categories. But there are no men categories.
