ms-steeleyourman:

rotmeat:

permutationofninjas:

[snipped]

I’m also majoring in sociology (I’m dual-majoring in sociology and gender studies) and I want to second the fact that the SJW definition of racism/discrimination isn’t used in an academic context - or at least, not commonly enough that I’ve ever seen it in sociology (though I believe I did once come across that definition in a gender studies class, the professor wasn’t necessarily endorsing that view, just presenting the argument for discussion). The basic definition I was taught was that racism = unwarranted prejudice or discrimination, often based on stereotypes, that may be direct or indirect, and may be personal or structural.

I think most sociologists would stress that we’re making an analysis at the level of social groups, not individuals, however, and some whites may be worse off than some blacks, so in that sense it’s completely contrary to the SJW definition, which typically overgeneralizes and oversimplifies the principle.

The (extremely basic) definition I found on a sociological dictionary online pretty much mirrors the common one:

http://sociologydictionary.org/racism/

vs 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

The About.com page also seems to make the point that anyone can discriminate, though it does add that some forms of discrimination are obviously more harmful or prevalent than others:

http://sociology.about.com/od/Ask-a-Sociologist/fl/Whats-the-Difference-Between-Prejudice-and-Racism.htm

A more nuanced (and dry) discussion about discrimination that’s more typical of what you’d get in a non-introductory sociology class is here:

http://edu.learnsoc.org/Chapters/5%20major%20sociological%20topics/9%20discrimination.htm

Suffice it to say, the SJW definition of “racism = privilege + power” is incredibly oversimplified compared to what you’d use in sociology.

Just trying to bring up what I learned in my fucking sociology class this year. But I’m so glad my opinion is ao fucking fascinating to everyone

Look, we’re going to try to break this down as much as we can for you in the hopes that it will make some kind of sense.  First, it’s not that your opinion is particularly interesting, it’s that we actually care about educating people.  Also, seeing someone walk into the Dunning-Kruger effect face-first is just painful.  (Just to be clear, we’re responding to ms-steeleyourman.  Rotmeat did an excellent job, and we’d recommend the last link to followers interested in a more detailed look.)

You posted a long and rambling monologue with an impressive array of spelling, grammar and formatting issues.  It contained no evidence to support the claim you were making (nor even a reference to it), and consisted mostly of you repeating the exact same thing over and over.  We called you out on it, pointing out the lack of evidence and doing out best to point out the flaws in the overall logic for good measure.

At that point, what did you do?  Did you go “whoops, clearly I fucked up and should think things through a little more carefully before running around condescendingly trying to ‘educate’ people”?  Nope.  You doubled down, coupling an appeal to your own authority with some impressive leaning on some very informed writing ability.  (You know, if ever there were a time to proofread a post, that would have been it.)  On top of that, you quite literally didn’t respond to anything we actually said while accusing us of having nothing to say.

Finally, you got snapped at, by one of our admins who is (while not an expert) vastly more qualified than you to comment, and has a particularly familiarity with these areas of theory due to his ongoing advocacy.  On top of that, a very nice passerby dropped in and gave a rather gentle and detailed explanation along with several sources that would help you to better understand the issue.  That was rather nice of them, wasn’t it?  Maybe you should thank them for that.

At that point you’ve got responses from not one but two people who actually have some accredited experience, and you’re pretty clearly in the wrong.  Your response?  ”OMG guise, I wuz just trying to show off this thing I lernd at college this year!!”  (Okay, okay, your spelling and grammar were actually okay this time.)  Thing is, there’s a big difference between “trying to bring up what I learned in class” and spewing out a long and condescending diatribe aimed at teaching people a “lesson,” then not even bothering to hit the “spellcheck” button.  Seriously, fail.  All you had to do, at literally any point in this process, was go “whoops, I messed up.”  You didn’t.  Hell, you still haven’t, which is pretty much why we’re writing this in the first place.  Is it really that hard to admit that despite getting a decent grade in an introductory sociology course you’re still sometimes wrong about stuff?

You fucked up.  It happens.  Learn from your mistakes….it’s worked out pretty well for us.

A, W, U, and N — Anonymous

iamnotamuffin:

A. If you could get away with one murder in your lifetime without any legal, social, or emotional repercussions, would you kill someone?

I probably would, but they’d have to be a huge scumbag that the world is better off without anyway.

W. The men’s rights movement, legitimate cause or laughable, and why?

I disagree with MRAs, because men’s rights is basically the social norm. But I think a lot of MRAs would change their minds if explained to what feminism actually is.

U. If you were old enough and not in a situation where it would be inappropriate, would you sleep with one of your (past) school teachers/professors?

Nope

N. What was the worst nightmare you ever had?

It’s hard to narrow down, but occasionally i’ll have nightmares about seeing friends/family getting murdered or dying and those always freak me out for a few days

How are men’s rights basically the social norm?  Just as others are, men are stuck in an incredibly restrictive gender role, and virtually every extant Western example of people being denied actual, legal rights based on their gender involves men.

Why do you think MRAs would change their minds if someone explained feminism to them?  First off, are you really entirely ignorant of how many MRAs used to be feminists?  For that matter, do you really think that MRAs are entirely unfamiliar with what feminism “really” is and does?  Do you have any idea how arrogant and patronizing you’re being?

The vast majority of MRAs know exactly what feminism is, and a surprisingly large portion of them used to be feminists themselves.  The difference is that they don’t judge feminism based on what people like you say, or what various different feminists claim feminism is, they judge it based on the visible results: the impact feminism has.  Unfortunately, judging feminism based on its behavior tends not to paint a pretty picture.

That’s not their fault.

The MRM isn’t inherently against feminism, but looking at feminism’s general failure at intersectionality with regards to men, constant attacks on anything remotely resembling men’s issues being addressed, and general flair for academic dishonesty and fact-fudging, can you really blame MRAs for getting a bit hostile?

Z 1 day ago j 7 R Via

murkurlur:

I told my dad about the existence of MRAs and he burst out laughing sitting “talk about a pointless job” and keeps giggling to himself

What’s so pointless about breaking down restrictive gender roles, bringing attention to victims of violence and assuault that are constantly erased, and bringing about institutional change to create a more gender-egalitarian future?

This is my first post on this blog fuck.

shegolem:

This is my blog for equality and the like.

First thing’s first I’m a socialist, I kinda flop between Democratic Socialism and Libertarian Socialism. I don’t think that it’s something that will be achievable in my lifetime, but I feel it’s something humanity should strive for all the same.

Not a big fan of MRAs and other reactionaries. People have tried to halt the progress of women’s rights since the days of the suffragettes. The “League for Men’s Rights” was formed in the 1920’s, I feel like today’s MRAs have the same mindset as those gentlemen did.

[snipped]

What makes you think this?  Do you think fighting to break down restrictive gender roles somehow stands in the way of the push for women’s rights?  Do you think that it’s somehow “reactionary” to bring attention to victims of violence and assault that are currently being erased?

y forever17luke:

i’ve noticed that some people are still a bit fuzzy on the definition of feminism, so i made this handy dandy flow chart to help out

You’re the one that’s confused about the definition of feminism.  Feminism is a movement: it’s not synonymous with “women’s rights” or “gender equality.”  People can fight for equal rights without labeling themselves as a “feminist,” and disrespecting the labels people choose for themselves shows a rather clear lack of intersectionality.

forever17luke:

i’ve noticed that some people are still a bit fuzzy on the definition of feminism, so i made this handy dandy flow chart to help out

You’re the one that’s confused about the definition of feminism.  Feminism is a movement: it’s not synonymous with “women’s rights” or “gender equality.”  People can fight for equal rights without labeling themselves as a “feminist,” and disrespecting the labels people choose for themselves shows a rather clear lack of intersectionality.

femme-fatalist:

permutationofninjas:

[snipped]

::sigh::Rubs temples:: i’m going to respond to whatever the hell I want, and given the loose structure of this website, I reserve the right to be equally loose in how structured those responses are.  I guess I forgot that a direct reblog can be taken personally, so i apologize for that ambiguity.  Either way, I’m done nitpicking this bullshit.  Same goes with the post you linked, where I simply pointed out how it was pretty fucked up to “love” what I saw as a blatant misdirection of a post.  If anything it further illustrates my habit of responding to things off the cuff.  Don’t see the hypocrisy there.

The hypocrisy comes in when you start complaining at someone for doing the exact same thing you just did.  Is it really that complicated a concept?

Me quoting or agreeing (as it were) with hooks’ particular passage as it is relevant to a given context in no way implies I agree with all of her opinions or politics.  For instance, I don’t agree with her recent writings accusing Beyonce of being a “terrorist.” 

You’re going to have to show me where the MRM have “evolved” as an intersectional movement, cause I’m finding it difficult to believe.

That’s not what we said.  We said that “the MRM has largely evolved in the post-intersectional context, whereas feminism did not.”  In other words, the bulk of the modern MRM showed up after intersectional theory, while the bulk of the modern feminist movement was already well-established long before intersectionality showed up.

"True intersectional thinking." Where and how did you arrive at that conclusion?  At least in regards to the reading i’ve done, including among some womanist writers/bloggers, the importance of intersectionality is to highlight the different experience of gender when it comes to race, etc.  So if one focuses on the experience of black men and gender without touching on, for instance, Asian or Latino men, is that person not exemplifying "true intersectional thinking?"

The problem isn’t focusing on a certain race/gender demographic.  The problem is looking at a race/gender demographic and drawing conclusions without understanding the situation of the race and gender individually.

The whole point of intersectional thinking is to acknowledge the ways that different demographics interact to create situations and perspectives that are more than the sum of their components.  To correctly identify the intersectional components of a situation, then, you first have to strip out the demographic components that aren’t specific to the combination.  To do that, you have to consider and compensate for how the component demographics work on their own.

To use your example, focusing on black men without giving equal attention to Latino men is not a problem.  Drawing conclusions about black men without understanding the individual situations of men and black people is.

I don’t have any issue with your comments about Crenshaw’s paper, other than of course it’s antiquated due to the passage of time.  Her points may be common sense now, but it wasn’t broadly so in the early 90’s, and that’s why the concept she coined is important.

Sure.  Recall what we said about the MRM evolving in a post-intersectional context?  That’s what we were talking about: the modern MRM largely evolved in a cultural context where those points had become common sense, and adopted them as exactly that.

Your explanation makes sense, now.  Do you think such an occurrence could happen (racist paternalism, I mean), if enough mrm members internalize that?  How does the MRM talk about racism in the context of their own movement and the world?  Have you found that racism (or other isms, for that matter) are a particular problem?

It’s theoretically possible, but we would tend to doubt it.  Unlike feminism, the MRM has generally resisted paradigms that directly tie credibility to demographics.  To illustrate, consider the treatment of women within the MRM to men within feminism.  Most of the MRM has historically treated female MRAs pretty much the same as male MRAs, and there are a number of female MRAs who hold prominent leadership positions within the movement.  On the other hand, we still see pretty regular debates within the feminist movement as to whether men should even be allowed to call themselves feminists, let alone inhabit places of influence or leadership.

The MRM deals with race on a pretty frequent basis, in part because of the way gender and race tend to compound.  That having been said, it’s less of a direct factor within the MRM than feminism because being nonwhite tends to have a very similar impact profile to being male.  In contrast, part of the reason feminism has had so much difficulty dealing with race is that the social issues associated with being nonwhite are often almost opposite the issues associated with being female.  Most discussions of race-related issues within the MRM originate from non-white people who do activism on both fronts, but the MRM tends to be open to such discussions and generally encourages them.

In general, we haven’t seen a huge number of issues with racism internal to the MRM.  That’s not to say that it doesn’t happen, mind you, but it’s generally not something people put up with and overt racism tends to get people shown the door.  It is true, however, that some groups in the MRM are willing to overlook problematic views so long as they appear only outside the confines of the movement.  While we don’t necessarily agree with this way of doing things, it’s also not entirely unreasonable.

And as to encountering toxic mra’s, I’ve only found them on tumblr so I’m not surprised by the picture I’ve gotten either.  I do follow just-smith and find his posts interesting, and refreshing! Especially as he calls out the particularly faulty statements of some feminists online, while identifying as feminist.  Generally we’re in agreement.  Unfortunately, I have a hard time getting through any of Girl Writes What’s videos, though they’re less infuriating than The Amazing Atheists posts.

It’s good that you feel that way about Just-Smith!  We’d also suggest following some of Permutation of Ninja’s members: Bluesigma, Lovelogicrainbows, Ponamona, and Grymmoire.

As for GirlWritesWhat, what exactly do you find problematic or frustrating? She does tend towards generalization, but do you find her generalizations not to be reasonable and justified?  Could you start by looking over her videos on Systemic Gendered Violence, Feminism and the Disposable Male, and her four-part series on Legal Parental Surrender (1, 2, 3, 4), and explain exactly what your objections are?  They’re rather long, we know, but in most cases you can speed them up to get through them faster.

Finally, we’d suggest reading Warren Farrel’s Myth of Male Power, although following the Tumblr blogs we suggested for a month or so should give you a decent picture of the material he covers in it.

If you’d like to give me more recs or discuss that further, I’d suggest starting a new thread. Your way of responding can make it rather hard to read once the conversation gets long.

As you used a link response, we snipped out the previous parts of the conversation, and will try to do so in future conversations with you.  Is this easier to read now?

ms-steeleyourman:

permutationofninjas:

ms-steeleyourman:

Hello. Time to learn a lesson.

To be racist you mayst have the power if the other race. 

This is actually impressive: one sentence into your actual argument, and you’ve already managed two grammatical mistakes that render the point unintelligible to anyone who didn’t already know what you’re going to say.  When setting out to “clear up some confusion” about important topics, proofreading might be a good start.

As for the actual argument, what you’ve got here is a simple assertion.  No justification, no evidence, no citations, just an unbacked claim you expect to be accepted at face value.

You must have the institutional power over that race.

Note the bait-and-switch here, where “power” is traded in for “institutional power.”

Guess what in today’s American society minorities DONT have that institutional power over white people. So no minorities can not be racist.

Non sequitur; the first sentence is largely true (depending on precisely how institutional power is defined), but the second simply does not follow without the acceptance of your prior unjustified assertion.

Can they discriminate yes. Can the be ignorant? Yes. Can they be prejudice? Yes. Are they right for doing that? No.

Finally, you get something right (albeit with another slew of writing errors).  How the hell did you get into college?

But that can not actually be racist because for them to do that they would have to have the institutional power to do so.

Repeating an assertion does not lend it weight, no matter how many times you belabor it.  Consider it a gift, not a curse: if not, you’d have the Tea Party and religious fundies running things.

Same goes for women. Can some women be hateful against men? Yes. Can some women be discriminatory? Yes. Can some women be ignorant against men? Yes. (Should they? No. ) but women don’t have the power to be institutionally sexist against men.

This one is even worse which, while disappointing, is hardly a surprise.  Your assertion about institutional power is questionable at best, at least when it’s defined in any sensible manner, and your conclusion is yet another non sequitur.

Same for people who are LBGTAQ they don’t have the power in society to institutionally hold down heterosexual people.

All prior criticisms apply.  Additionally, your initialism is wrong: LGBT(+) and GLBT(+) both make sense, but LBGT(+) is both non-standard and rather odd when you consider what the initials stand for.

So stop saying minorities can be racist. Women can be sexist. And stuff because they actually can’t because they lack the institutional support to do that.

Yet your entire justification for this boils down to “because I said so.”  Well done.

Learn the definitions of words and what they actually me before you use them.

Yes, you should.  See, we (and others who use those words) aren’t the ones redefining them in ways that are convenient for an ideological worldview: that would be your department.

Racism and sexism are not interchangeable with discrimination. To be racist means to discrimination and to have power over the other race. To discriminate means to INDIVIDUALLY hate or be prejudice against some one based on a factor like race, gender, or sexual orientation.

As we were first reading through this post, we kept hoping that you’d actually get around to putting forward something, anything to justify what you’re saying.  Sadly, we were disappointed.  In over two hundred and fifty words, all you actually managed was to repeat the exact same bullshit claim over and over again, apparently in the hopes that would make you look something other than utterly clueless.  As you may have guessed by now, it didn’t exactly work.

Try again, this time with evidence.

It’s funny because I have a 4.0 in writing. was completely just going on a rant. Ands actually got into college quite easily. Aaaand if you took a sociology class you would learn all of what I said is true ( I took mine in college and got a 4.0 but that’s not important.) and if all you can do if correct someone’s grammar and construction it means you really don’t have anything to criticize

Ah, we see.  You’re not incompetent, just lazy.  We usually try to refrain from commenting on people’s grammar, even when it’s atrocious, but you were a special case on the simple basis that it was so abominable it outright impeded comprehension.

We’re very glad you took a whole sociology class!  Unfortunately, the professor apparently didn’t bother to teach you the importance of supporting your assertions with evidence.  (Or did they just forget to teach you the background on that definition the day they taught race?)  We weep for the education system.  That said, they also apparently didn’t teach you that completely failing to address the core point of someone’s response isn’t good practice, and has a way of making you look incompetent.  (We suppose we have to take back our earlier retraction there.)

It may also benefit you to know that one of our admins happens to be taking a concurrent second bachelor’s degree in sociology (alongside his existing one, a double major in software engineering and business).  He thinks you’re full of shit: the definition you’re referring to does not have nearly the widespread acceptance some would imply, even within sociology, and has a history marred by both considerable academic activism and general intellectual dishonesty.  Even if that weren’t the case, it would still only be suitable for theoretical application within the limited sociological fields in which it was created, and is not in any way suitable for application as a general definition.

Try again.  This time with evidence and without derailing.

RAINN Followup Campaign TODAY!

Hello, followers!  It’s DJ again!

Remember our campaign to contact RAINN on the 15th of March, and their response?  On June 15th, I mentioned preparing for another campaign; the text of that post will be more or less copied here.

It’s been quite some time since our last campaign, and they haven’t made any of our suggested changes.  Let’s remind them of what we want from them.

Please reblog this message, please try to get the message out as much as possible, and please e-mail RAINN at info@rainn.org and/or chelseab@rainn.org about their erasure of male victims!

An example of a possible e-mail for this campaign is under the cut.  Please submit any responses to us.

Thanks!

-DJ

Read More

RAINN Followup Campaign TODAY!

Hello, followers!  It’s DJ again!

Remember our campaign to contact RAINN on the 15th of March, and their response?  On June 15th, I mentioned preparing for another campaign; the text of that post will be more or less copied here.

It’s been quite some time since our last campaign, and they haven’t made any of our suggested changes.  Let’s remind them of what we want from them.

Please reblog this message, please try to get the message out as much as possible, and please e-mail RAINN at info@rainn.org and/or chelseab@rainn.org about their erasure of male victims!

An example of a possible e-mail for this campaign is under the cut.  Please submit any responses to us.

Thanks!

-DJ

Read More

RAINN Followup Campaign TODAY!

Hello, followers!  It’s DJ again!

Remember our campaign to contact RAINN on the 15th of March, and their response?  On June 15th, I mentioned preparing for another campaign; the text of that post will be more or less copied here.

It’s been quite some time since our last campaign, and they haven’t made any of our suggested changes.  Let’s remind them of what we want from them.

Please reblog this message, please try to get the message out as much as possible, and please e-mail RAINN about their erasure of male victims!

An example of a possible e-mail for this campaign is under the cut.  Please submit any responses to us.

Thanks!

-DJ

Read More

aryvindication:

mens rights? what rights do men not already posses? seriously someone explain to me why mras feel so butthurt about woman trying to push for some much needed equality. 

and why on earth do they love fedoras and libertarianism 

Your tags are especially interesting considering what you’re trying to say.  Who do you think is going to get more shit, a woman wearing a suit or a man wearing a dress?  Don’t bother answering: it’s really rather obvious.

Men are discouraged from not focusing on their career, and are often channeled into more dangerous and time-consuming occupations.  They account for virtually all workplace deaths, and there’s an obvious cultural prejudice against men who choose to be homemakers or care for children.  Men account for a vast majority of victims of violence, and male victims rarely get even remotely the same level of attention and support as female victims.  The judicial system itself displays a well-established bias against men, as well, to the point that prisoners are almost universally male.  Men are seen as less worthy of protection, and often need to “prove” their worth and manhood by going out and doing things.

Are you really so blind that you can’t see these issues?

y dragonnan:

musicalluna:

permutationofninjas:

[snipped]

No.

I’m feeling my ire rise the longer I read this and I’m forcing myself to be calm about it.
Whatever the rationale, whatever the nit-picking argument, whatever the justification based on “facts”, there is one fact that remains.  This is something designed ONLY to go after women.  Unless there’s something I haven’t heard that is 100% equivalent in men’s sports.  I hear a lot of crickets, however. 
In a horse race, the faster horses are “handicapped” is: have lead weight added to their load with the idea that it creates a more even or “fair’ race.  The notion, time and again, had been shown to be fanciful and ridiculous given that there is always a single winner, therefore you cannot create a perfect system that gives every racehorse a perfectly equal opportunity to win.  Fine and dandy - these are dumb animals so I’m sure they don’t care.  Furthermore, though, THE WEIGHT IS REMOVED AFTER THE RACE!
Yet, what this RULE insists, is that these women athletes are required to permanently cripple themselves because they are too good at what they do.
So, are there any male athletes ever required to do the same??  Or is the common attitude regarding male physique to celebrate their strength, speed, agility, and general muscle mass?  Isn’t is the common reaction to a male who loses to criticize the fact that he hadn’t trained hard enough rather than to say “Well fuck, we should have injected his competitor with a drug to make his muscles shrink.”?
The argument solely hinges on the idea that women are required to fit into a prelabeled box - yet men are exempt from that same label IN SPITE of the fact that there is just as much diversity in the size, muscle mass, and health of men as there are women.
When men box, they are put into divisions based on class.  Nobody expects a featherweight boxer to face off against a heavyweight boxer.  NEVER do they say, “Well fuck, we should require all heavyweight boxers to undergo gene therapy to make them all featherweight.”
More and more this entire load of BS sounds too much like the arguments as to why “blacks should have been banned from sports” in general.  Because there WAS that argument.  Why?  Because racist, bigoted, shitheads thought that blacks were generally more physically fit and would therefore have an advantage over whites in competitive sports.
But, sure, you’re right.  That isn’t the same argument at all because we’re talking about women.

Why do you think genders are separated in competitive athletic sports?  There are a number of reasons, but by far the most important is that without gender separation males would completely dominate at pretty much all of them.  Due to (among other things) higher testosterone levels, males have an “unfair” advantage when it comes to most athletic events: they’re able to run faster, lift more, and jump higher than even the most athletic females would normally be able to.  The presence of gender separation rules like those of the IOC allows women a chance to compete where they normally could not.
The issue here, of course, is that they’re actually dividing not by gender but by sex.  After all, should transwomen who don’t go through HRT or transition in any way be allowed to compete in the women’s divisions?  Of course not!  They’d hold most of the same advantages that cismen would have.  Unfortunately, this is where problems tend to arise because while sex is normally treated as a dichotomous binary, it’s actually a spectrum of traits.  This makes it’s very difficult to define a precise line between sexes, in part because that line may differ depending on the situation.  Identifying as a certain gender doesn’t necessarily change one’s sex, just as having certain genitals doesn’t necessarily change one’s sex.  There are a number of different qualities that cause people to be classified as “male,” “female” or neither.
The IOC recognizes that genitals aren’t the only determinant of sex, and they also recognize that certain things affect one’s athletic ability more than genitals do.  Here, they’ve decided to focus on testosterone levels, because they’re a convenient figure with some significance that can be obtained without extremely invasive testing.  (Remember, they have to balance that too.)  Is it a perfect metric?  Absolutely not.  However, it’s better than a lot of the alternatives, particularly because the process is much less invasive than previous methods.  Nonetheless, it remains open to challenge, and if you can put forward a better one I’m sure the athletic community is listening.
For now, though it’s not as if the IOC can simply allow these women to compete without some form of intervention.  Allowing them to compete in women’s divisions could potentially be akin to allowing transwomen who didn’t go through HRT to compete: in other words, flagrantly unfair.  They also can’t simply be shifted into the men’s divisions because there, they would still have virtually no chance.  Instead, the IOC has given these runners a choice: take steps to adhere to the categories that were laid out to maintain the competitive balance, or stop competing.  This rule is not insisting that they permanently cripple themselves; to use your horse-racing analogy, the rule makes sure that horses can’t use ridiculously light jockeys to give themselves an advantage.  It’s true that hormone levels have a more significant and longer-lasting effect than strapping some iron to a horse, but it should not be compared to inflicting permanent disability.
Imagine a boxing league where there are only two weight classes: heavyweights and lightweights.  Anyone can box in the heavyweight league, but to compete as a lightweight a competitor must be under 200 pounds.
In the IOC situation, males are akin to heavyweights.  They may not compete against anyone but other heavyweights, because their characteristics give them an obvious and pretty much decisive advantage.  At the same time, they aren’t limited in terms of naturally-produced testosterone because the outside edges of the classes are unbounded.  In the “high-testosterone” class, that means no upper limit.  Females, on the other hand, are akin to lightweights, because the presence of this division allows them to compete.  If there were no weight divisions, heavyweights would entirely dominate and the lightweights wouldn’t get any recognition at all.  That’s pretty clearly a bad thing.  However, that space to compete also comes with a restriction at the top end, which in some cases can make life difficult.
This isn’t about policing women’s bodies and allowing men’s bodies to just “do whatever.”  This is about creating a situation in which women can be represented in international sporting competitions.  Unless you think only men should be able to compete at the Olympic level, unless you think only men should be viewed as exceptionally talented at sports, your position is untenable.

dragonnan:

musicalluna:

permutationofninjas:

[snipped]

No.

I’m feeling my ire rise the longer I read this and I’m forcing myself to be calm about it.

Whatever the rationale, whatever the nit-picking argument, whatever the justification based on “facts”, there is one fact that remains.  This is something designed ONLY to go after women.  Unless there’s something I haven’t heard that is 100% equivalent in men’s sports.  I hear a lot of crickets, however. 

In a horse race, the faster horses are “handicapped” is: have lead weight added to their load with the idea that it creates a more even or “fair’ race.  The notion, time and again, had been shown to be fanciful and ridiculous given that there is always a single winner, therefore you cannot create a perfect system that gives every racehorse a perfectly equal opportunity to win.  Fine and dandy - these are dumb animals so I’m sure they don’t care.  Furthermore, though, THE WEIGHT IS REMOVED AFTER THE RACE!

Yet, what this RULE insists, is that these women athletes are required to permanently cripple themselves because they are too good at what they do.

So, are there any male athletes ever required to do the same??  Or is the common attitude regarding male physique to celebrate their strength, speed, agility, and general muscle mass?  Isn’t is the common reaction to a male who loses to criticize the fact that he hadn’t trained hard enough rather than to say “Well fuck, we should have injected his competitor with a drug to make his muscles shrink.”?

The argument solely hinges on the idea that women are required to fit into a prelabeled box - yet men are exempt from that same label IN SPITE of the fact that there is just as much diversity in the size, muscle mass, and health of men as there are women.

When men box, they are put into divisions based on class.  Nobody expects a featherweight boxer to face off against a heavyweight boxer.  NEVER do they say, “Well fuck, we should require all heavyweight boxers to undergo gene therapy to make them all featherweight.”

More and more this entire load of BS sounds too much like the arguments as to why “blacks should have been banned from sports” in general.  Because there WAS that argument.  Why?  Because racist, bigoted, shitheads thought that blacks were generally more physically fit and would therefore have an advantage over whites in competitive sports.

But, sure, you’re right.  That isn’t the same argument at all because we’re talking about women.

Why do you think genders are separated in competitive athletic sports?  There are a number of reasons, but by far the most important is that without gender separation males would completely dominate at pretty much all of them.  Due to (among other things) higher testosterone levels, males have an “unfair” advantage when it comes to most athletic events: they’re able to run faster, lift more, and jump higher than even the most athletic females would normally be able to.  The presence of gender separation rules like those of the IOC allows women a chance to compete where they normally could not.

The issue here, of course, is that they’re actually dividing not by gender but by sex.  After all, should transwomen who don’t go through HRT or transition in any way be allowed to compete in the women’s divisions?  Of course not!  They’d hold most of the same advantages that cismen would have.  Unfortunately, this is where problems tend to arise because while sex is normally treated as a dichotomous binary, it’s actually a spectrum of traits.  This makes it’s very difficult to define a precise line between sexes, in part because that line may differ depending on the situation.  Identifying as a certain gender doesn’t necessarily change one’s sex, just as having certain genitals doesn’t necessarily change one’s sex.  There are a number of different qualities that cause people to be classified as “male,” “female” or neither.

The IOC recognizes that genitals aren’t the only determinant of sex, and they also recognize that certain things affect one’s athletic ability more than genitals do.  Here, they’ve decided to focus on testosterone levels, because they’re a convenient figure with some significance that can be obtained without extremely invasive testing.  (Remember, they have to balance that too.)  Is it a perfect metric?  Absolutely not.  However, it’s better than a lot of the alternatives, particularly because the process is much less invasive than previous methods.  Nonetheless, it remains open to challenge, and if you can put forward a better one I’m sure the athletic community is listening.

For now, though it’s not as if the IOC can simply allow these women to compete without some form of intervention.  Allowing them to compete in women’s divisions could potentially be akin to allowing transwomen who didn’t go through HRT to compete: in other words, flagrantly unfair.  They also can’t simply be shifted into the men’s divisions because there, they would still have virtually no chance.  Instead, the IOC has given these runners a choice: take steps to adhere to the categories that were laid out to maintain the competitive balance, or stop competing.  This rule is not insisting that they permanently cripple themselves; to use your horse-racing analogy, the rule makes sure that horses can’t use ridiculously light jockeys to give themselves an advantage.  It’s true that hormone levels have a more significant and longer-lasting effect than strapping some iron to a horse, but it should not be compared to inflicting permanent disability.

Imagine a boxing league where there are only two weight classes: heavyweights and lightweights.  Anyone can box in the heavyweight league, but to compete as a lightweight a competitor must be under 200 pounds.

In the IOC situation, males are akin to heavyweights.  They may not compete against anyone but other heavyweights, because their characteristics give them an obvious and pretty much decisive advantage.  At the same time, they aren’t limited in terms of naturally-produced testosterone because the outside edges of the classes are unbounded.  In the “high-testosterone” class, that means no upper limit.  Females, on the other hand, are akin to lightweights, because the presence of this division allows them to compete.  If there were no weight divisions, heavyweights would entirely dominate and the lightweights wouldn’t get any recognition at all.  That’s pretty clearly a bad thing.  However, that space to compete also comes with a restriction at the top end, which in some cases can make life difficult.

This isn’t about policing women’s bodies and allowing men’s bodies to just “do whatever.”  This is about creating a situation in which women can be represented in international sporting competitions.  Unless you think only men should be able to compete at the Olympic level, unless you think only men should be viewed as exceptionally talented at sports, your position is untenable.