Comments

  1. Gino says

    I wonder how the thought process goes with these people who try to defend Biblical slavery to Matt. (I know, if I just explain patiently to Matt that the Bible is perfect so it doesn’t really mean what you think it means when you actually read it, then I’m sure he’ll agree). Oy vey!

  2. uglygeek says

    Random thoughts:
    – Matt was really very nervous in this episode. It was dropping calls at the first chance. Also, while I agree that it is not good manners to interrupt someone while he is talking, it can happen in a phone conversation and it is not even a crime, immediately starting to scream and put the interlocutor on hold is not a sign of great manners either. At the very least it doesn’t show that atheism make people very calm. 🙂
    – I understand that the news of John, Jen and Tracie leaving has been given via social media, but not everybody is into social media, so they could have acknowledged with a few words the fact that people who had been hosting the show for so many years had left. (And the reason why they left also shows that atheism does not necessarily make people very rational, they sadly acted as fundamentalists of a political ideology, which makes people behave not so differently from religious zealots).
    Overall, this was a quite sad episode to watch, for me.

  3. uglygeek says

    @1 Gino
    I also don’t understand why these people want to prove that the Bible is perfect. They could very well say that most of it it’s just metaphorical and they would not have to defend slavery or fight against the theory of evolution.
    In fact, most Catholics don’t even care too much about the Old Testament, accept evolution and would not have any problem stating that Exodus 21 is a pile of dung, while still remaining religious bigots at the same time.

  4. Honey Tone says

    Ugly

    They have been told/taught/indoctrinated regarding its perfection. And it has been “demonstrated “ to them countless times by “knowledgeable “ people. If they themselves can come to believe/accept/understand it, then so can anybody else.

    If they just try long and hard enough.

    Maddening, isn’t it?

  5. Gino says

    @Ugly #3

    I guess part of the problem is that if you’re willing to admit that some parts are figurative and not to be taken seriously then you have to be able to defend why some parts need to be taken literally and how it is possible to logically determine which is which. Their faith can be a house of cards that will collapse if it can be shown the base is rickety.

  6. uglygeek says

    @Gino #4
    I don’t think that the faith should crumble only because the Bible cannot be taken literally. There are other reasons, but this is not a good one. After all:
    1) The Bible is not the Quran. The Quran yes, is supposed to have been dictated word by word by God to his Prophet, so it has to be taken literally. The Bible is a set of books that somebody somehow put together, and some of its content is very “Regional” so to speak.
    2) Catholics are Christian and yet do not take the Bible literally, without losing their faith for this reason. What really matters in their religion can be summarised in 100 words (the “Credo”), all the rest is mostly filler.
    It is a display of great weakness and of huge lack of imagination having to take all the Bible literally to believe in it.

  7. t90bb says

    2. ugly….Matt was very nervous?? Really? Maybe you meant it seemed to you Matt was very nervous? Matt seemed in top form tonight to me. Shitload of crazies which made it all the more fun.

    Matt was very quick tonight and cut through a lot of bullshit. The man is simply amazing. The crap served up tonight by theists was pitiful. Matt is not perfect and he is the first to acknowledge this.

    ugly, if the show continues to sadden you I hope you find a happier way to spend your Sunday evening. You have my permission not to watch, lol.

  8. uglygeek says

    @t90bb #9
    For your information, I am an atheist. I also really like the show, usually, otherwise I wouldn’t watch it. And I especially like Matt. I am finding your aggressive sarcasm quite misplaced, to be frank.
    I really think Matt was more nervous than usual, today. I think he also kind of acknowledged that at some point the show.
    Of course in an atheist show where theists call it should be expected to have a lot of bullshit, and Dave from Missouri was particularly obnoxious. But other callers were not particularly crazy, if you drop the line as soon as a theist says something you don’t like there isn’t going to be a real conversation.
    TAE should not become a show where hosts just tell off theists for the fun of atheist viewers like you and me, I hope, even because theists will probably stop calling.
    There is also an unsettling asymmetry in the kind of language used and accepted: Matt often swears, and I have no problem with that, but he also does not accept that the caller could also try to use aggressive language.
    This was not the best episode, in my opinion. And it is also understandable, given all the turmoil in the ACA. These people worked together for decades, in some cases, they must have been friends and a number of friendships just crumbled because of politics, it must be a difficult time for everybody involved.

  9. t90bb says

    9 Ugly….now your Frank? make up you mind. lol

    Its very interesting you think Matt was more nervous than usual. I have never seen him as nervous but perhaps you get inside the minds of others. Please give me the time stamp where he said he was nervous. Frustrated maybe, nervous, no. No one dropped calls as soon as they heard something they did not like. Your imagining things.

    Don’t add to the drama regarding some hosts leaving. We have lost hosts before. Disappointing?? Sure.

    Btw….peoples core values are not politics my friend. It’s apparent some core values were violated. I respect their decision to leave. I’d rather they stayed and aired out their differences but respect their decision to simply leave. It is likely we don’t know the full story and may never know the full story. And that’s ok. Its my hope that they will be back one day. If not we will surely be together in heaven!

  10. kkehno says

    Has it been confirmed that Jen and Tracie left? Someone said that Phil also left but nowhere can i find confirmation for these. It would be nice to know what stance aca and axp have now on the issues recently brought up so i could also make informed decision of my support.

  11. uglygeek says

    @kkehno #11 – Maybe Phil said something at the end of the last (really last) “Godless Bitches” episode where Tracie and Jen confirmed they were leaving.

  12. t90bb says

    Patrick’s call was a classic…..”irrefutable evidence for God”…….people are filled with the holy spirit and speak in tongues?? that’s the evidence?? No sir, that’s another claim. Claiming the holy spirit as part of your evidence is begging the question.

    There were at least 2 people this week on AXP and or TH (hard to keep str8) that actually claimed there was absolutely NO evidence for evolution. And one of them claimed they were seeking a Masters Degree in bio………?. They speak intelligently enough and then…. they say these things.

    Why not just say that they understand there is evidence they don’t find convincing. Or better yet, even though they recognize the evidence appears solid, they are going with their creation version of the Bible. Would seem to be more honest, no?

    I am careful not to tell theists that there is no evidence for God. Rather there is no evidence that I find convincing.

    I would love for the hosts to ask these callers what they understand science claims are evidences for evolution. Another question I would love to see them asked is how many disciplines of science purport to cross verify evolution can they name. I bet the majority will draw blanks.

    I grew up in a Christian home and honestly bought the bullshit for a while. The key is to remain blissfully ignorant. I defended creationism and actually argued with people armed with only slogans and tricks. When I had my moment of clarity I was beyond embarrassed. I actually apologized to many people admitting I had no idea what I was talking about and mislead them about what I had actually studied.

    When I watch some of these people I am more and more amazed I ever escaped. I am so grateful to the ACA and the atheist community for giving me my mind back. I love you guys.

  13. uglygeek says

    @t90bb #10

    …peoples core values are not politics my friend.

    I did not know we were friends… Anyway, peoples core values in this case were political values, I don’t see why one thing should exclude the other.

    As Jonathan Haidt says:

    Some values become “sacred” in the sense that they are held to be inviolable, unquestionable, ground truth.
    We can develop irrational commitments to our sacred values. When they are challenged or threatened the first thing we throw under the bus in their defense tends to be truth, evidence.

    And this was a perfect example, in this case the heretic thing to say was that trans-women are not exactly women, and the reaction to this heresy has been not very different from the reaction of a religious fundamentalist when his religion is offended.
    Ideas are important and political ideas are especially important; you can call them “core values” but it is still politics in the end.

  14. jabbly says

    @kkehno

    Yep, there is a statement out there (sorry haven’t got a link) saying this is the reason why Godless Bitches will no longer be produced.

    Anyway, back to the show.

  15. kkehno says

    If someone knows and can link to that i would like to see it. Tried looking on fb pages but was unable and the post on gb page did not spesify the reason of the end of show.

  16. kkehno says

    “And the reason why they left also shows that atheism does not necessarily make people very rational, they sadly acted as fundamentalists of a political ideology, which makes people behave not so differently from religious zealots”

    “And this was a perfect example, in this case the heretic thing to say was that trans-women are not exactly women, and the reaction to this heresy has been not very different from the reaction of a religious fundamentalist when his religion is offended.”

    How can it be “political ideology” if the consensus of the relevant experts and the medical field is that transwomen are women and should be treated as any woman. No where in apas statements there does it read that transwomen should get medical aid that they need but still be barred from women only spaces because they are “not exactly women”. The whole basis of medical treatments to transwomen is that they ARE women and every means available should be used to make them more comfortable to be a women. If the consensus was “they are “not exactly women”” they would recommend therapy “to accept their real gender” instead of medical and social transitioning. This has same basis as curing the gays from gayness.

    I would claim that the statements contrary of the consensus of expert and medical field are those of made “political ideology”. People claiming them being true should be treated as ignorant and/or bigots who only care of their “political ideology” and not what the actual facts of the matter are. Transwomens womenhood is a done deal and everyone claiming otherwise should be treated same way than those wanting to force gay people to go to conversion therapy.

  17. indianajones says

    @kkheno. Best of luck getting some of these folks to show some empathy, I sure couldn’t

  18. kkehno says

    @indianajones. I am not expecting to get any empathy, I just would like to have it explained how agreeing to consensus of experts is having a “political ideology”

  19. t90bb says

    14…ugly….do you have a time stamp where Matt said he was nervous or no???

    your (not?) friend.

  20. Lamont Cranston says

    One sometimes can be astounded at the workings of people’s minds.

    It is astonishing that someone can claim to be able to provide “irrefutable evidence for the existence of God,” then proceed to provide something that is not evidence, something that not even Christians can agree upon, and something which is easily refuted without half trying.

    It never occurs to them that if there was real irrefutable evidence it would have been presented hundreds if not well over a thousand years ago and would be commonly known. They think of themselves more highly than they ought. Instead, they believe they are the first to have this monumental insight that will prove their position. Yet they are woefully uninformed about even the most fundamental information that is readily available to everyone.

    Worse yet, I was one of them. I still have failings of the same type, just in different areas. If I ever act like that around here, someone please slap me up side the head and get my attention to straighten me out. Something tells me finding someone to do that around here wouldn’t be a problem. 🙂

    Lamont Cranston

  21. t90bb says

    I fear calling it a “political” issue in some way minimizes the issue.

    Its kind of like the definition of “minor surgery”…….its any surgery that’s not being done to you. LOL.

    If ugly simply meant that its an issue publicly discussed then fine. However, his claims that those that left the ACA over this were “irrational” leads me to believe he’s not really vested. Its like saying how could anyone leave the ACA over “that”.

    I was disappointed by them leaving but I understand and respect the decision. I would not insult them by calling their decisions as “irrational”. They believe at the very least RR and the actions of the ACA board were callously reckless. I agree. I have chosen to remain and air out my feelings, they decided to leave. That is totally ok. Their decision to leave is in no way irrational. As far as I know they have left the ACA, not the atheist/humanist movement.

  22. starfleetdude says

    How can it be “political ideology” if the consensus of the relevant experts and the medical field is that transwomen are women and should be treated as any woman.

    It can be political because of the subjective claim that self-identification alone is a sufficient reason to believe that trans-women are female. It’s not a claim that rests on objective facts that all parties can agree on, but is actually a self-serving assertion in support of an ideology that claims gender and sex are equivalent. This is being disputed in the particular case of athletic competition, when trans-women athletes who have undergone puberty as males have physical advantages in height and strength that give them an unfair advantage over natal female athletes.

  23. kkehno says

    “It can be political because of the subjective claim that self-identification alone is a sufficient reason to believe that trans-women are female.”

    But the “subjective claim of self-identification” is good enough for experts on the relevant field and the consensus of the medical expert is that the best way to help transperson is to get them transition socially and medically to their “subjective claimed self-identification” without any disclaimer that they are somehow still not actually their gender. And it is proven to be the best way to help them because it improves life quality of a person and barring them to get medical treatments needed to transition can be life threatening at worst. And these objective facts have cause the consensus to set on “help transition to persons self-identified gender” rather than “force them to therapy to accept the gender they were born with”. The fact that some people on the internet who dont have degree on relevant field want to make it political and up to a debate does not make it political or up to a debate. It just makes you and your buddies look science deniers and haters.

    “when trans-women athletes who have undergone puberty as males have physical advantages in height and strength that give them an unfair advantage over natal female athletes.”

    This is actually not true. It can be even argued that its a huge disadvantage. Person going to hrt loses muscle mass and after a while have it at same range than any other women. At that point having a heavier build is a hindrance because you have less muscles and hemoglobin to do the sporting.

    But if what you that your claim is true, do you agree that hormone blockers should be made available to any transkid so when the future generation of transwomen athletes grow up the have not all gone through puberty as male?

  24. John David Balla says

    I too have occasionally taken my ball with me from the playground with little explanation other than my feeling had been hurt (and not even admitting that although it was obvious). It never turned out well and eventually I realized my part in it and how passive-aggressive and immature my behavior was.

    This time I am witnessing something very close to that by one person I certainly admire. I prefer to be saddened and disappointed rather than angry. That’s the silver lining for me.

  25. starfleetdude says

    This is actually not true. It can be even argued that its a huge disadvantage. Person going to hrt loses muscle mass and after a while have it at same range than any other women.

    Hormones aren’t an absolute determinant of muscle mass though. Resistance training (weights) and a diet high in protein can preserve muscle mass even when there’s a decline in testosterone level. Considering that athletes devote considerable time and effort to training and pay close attention to their diet, a trans-woman athlete can in fact preserve their pre-transition physique. Here’s some information on the subject for you:

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/preserve-your-muscle-mass

  26. kkehno says

    The link you provided did not include study of those undergoing hrt and so is not relevant. It can be that through diet transwoman can preserve some muscle mass but this is just a speculation and is missing how big the difference is on hrt. You can almost say it makes a woman?

    “Harper has since shown similar results for a transgender rower, a cyclist, and a sprinter. Together, the findings make a case that previous exposure to male levels of testosterone does not confer an enduring athletic advantage.”

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/scientist-racing-discover-how-gender-transitions-alter-athletic-performance-including

    It may be that all these athletes just did not happen to know how to preserve their muscle mass? But if we could just on your comment assume that every athlete is all the way for the sports we should assume that these people did too everything they could to maintain muscle mass.

    And also: “Conclusion
    Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/

  27. starfleetdude says

    Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition

    Given that males in general have a physical advantage over females in athletics, which is why there are two separate categories for males and females, this claim that trans-women have no advantage at any stage of their transition is not credible. There are prominent examples of trans-women athletes who may have started their transition but whose physique has not significantly diminished. Athletes such as CeCe Telfer, who won the Division II 400-meter Women’s hurdles after previously competing as a male in NCAA track and field events. Telfer’s time running as a trans-woman has not fallen off from Telfer’s time when running in men’s events, which shouldn’t happen if HRT was a major factor.

    https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-an-athlete-who-ran-ncaa-track-as-a-man-for-3-years-just-won-an-ncaa-womens-title/

  28. kkehno says

    But if there is a clear advantage the studies and people in the field would have found it and it was clear. Pointing to one or some athlete does not justify generalization because it would be more unbelievable if no transwomen ever won any competition. And how could you rule out that Cece was not in top game when he was sporting as a man and was on her best game when sporting as a female? The gender dysphoria exist and has drastic effect on people and ruling this out outright makes me think that you dont actually are that well knowable on the issues of trans?

    “this claim that trans-women have no advantage at any stage of their transition is not credible”

    It may seem not credible if one is ignorant of the effects of the hrt? If i have to choose should i give more weight to an actual scientific paper or some random person on some blog, i think i go with the paper.

  29. starfleetdude says

    From the article I linked to:

    Medical physicist Joanna Harper, who has served as an adviser to the IOC on transgender issues and has made the transition from male to female herself, said the NCAA doesn’t have a set limit for testosterone for trans women, nor does she believe there is consistent verification of T levels. “The NCAA has not set a maximum T level for trans women, and I don’t believe that they do any independent verification of hormone levels,” said Harper.

    The theory goes that if one greatly reduces their testosterone, their performances in sport should decline significantly. Harper told me one would expect roughly a 10% decrease in performance for flat events (she wasn’t sure it would be the great in the hurdles due to the difference in hurdle heights). Yet Telfer is actually running faster in a few flat events as a woman as compared to what she ran as a man. Her 60-meter personal best as a man was 7.67. As a woman, it’s 7.63. Her flat 400-meter pb was 55.77 as a man and it’s 54.41 as a woman.

    This exception to Harper’s theory about HRT contradicts the claim that trans-women athletes suffer a performance decline from their pre-transition state. Why might that be? An explanation immediately follows from the same article:

    However, her coach Zach Emerson said that anyone looking only at Telfer’s times to try to see if the NCAA’s rules on testosterone suppression for MTF transgender athletes is effective would be making a mistake. He said that the difference between Telfer’s work ethic this year compared to her first three was vast.

    “She’s been been incredibly motivated this year and I think the transition one million percent had something to do with that. It’s like night and day as far as what she was willing to do as an athlete and how committed she was,” said Emerson, who indicated that while Telfer always had a large presence on the team, she often only showed up to practice a couple of times a week until this year. As a coach, he said she wasn’t an athlete that he could rely on. “You couldn’t look at her during her first three years and say that’s an athlete doing their best. As a coach, I could not do that.”

    So training and effort can compensate for a drop in testosterone, as the article I earlier linked to explained. Considering that Telfer was previously competing at a high level as a male in NCAA track and field, the conclusion is that the advantages Telfer had as a male athlete have not been negated by HRT.

  30. t90bb says

    28. John…

    Leaving the ACA does not mean they have quit on humanity. Perhaps they will find a better fit to do service. Our loss may be another’s gain.

    As far as feelings being hurt it sure seems that the ones doing the most crying are members of the ACA. I will admit I felt a bit abandoned when I heard the news. But they have lives to live too. Perhaps some time will allow for reflection on all sides. I have said it would not surprise me if some of those that left, return in time.

    In the last few posts people have labelled/insinuated those that left irrational and immature. Do you think this is actually helping?

    I love the ACA but I will be the first to admit how badly they botched this. Their initial reaction was a overreach and their eventual kiss up to Stephen was equally deplorable. (in my opinion obviously). Lets hope everyone involved learned something here. I have. My first reaction was to completely defend Stephen. Some reflection led me to see he was terribly reckless (as he has admitted). Although I don’t attribute hurtful intent he still needed to be held to account imho.

    The best medicine here appears to be continued conversation, and those that left indeed make that more difficult. That’s what is most disappointing. That said I am not privy to all the factors that may have led to this, and I wont pretend to. My position on this has evolved quite a bit upon reflection.

    Its not like they decided to stay and sought to silence those they disagreed with. That would be something else entirely.

    I miss many of those that departed but hope that they are happy!! truly.

    We will march ahead hopefully a bit wiser than before.

  31. starfleetdude says

    The gender dysphoria exist and has drastic effect on people and ruling this out outright makes me think that you dont actually are that well knowable on the issues of trans?

    Here’s something you may want to take note of with respect to the claim that trans-women are somehow physically disadvantaged with respect to natal female athletes:

    The transgender academic Joanna Harper, who advises the IOC, accepts more research is needed. However, she argued: “Transgender women after hormone therapy are taller, bigger and stronger on average than cisgender women. But that does not necessarily make it unfair. In high levels of sport, transgender women are substantially underrepresented. That indicates that whatever physical advantages transgender women have – and they certainly exist – they are not nearly as large as the sociological disadvantages.”

    More here:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jun/12/olympians-ioc-transgender-guidelines

  32. kkehno says

    Thanks for proving my point mate:

    “She’s been been incredibly motivated this year and I think the transition one million percent had something to do with that. It’s like night and day as far as what she was willing to do as an athlete and how committed she was,”

    Before transitioning this person was not in the top game but after transition she was. Just as i said on my last comment. For this to be a proof for clear advantage the athlete must maintain same level on training and commitment before and after. Here we have someone who just happen to mach and make small improvement on her unmotivated self after hrt when doing most she could. If the hrt does not affect, one would think that the improvement would be more amazing rather than small but noticable.

  33. kkehno says

    “Here’s something you may want to take note of with respect to the claim that trans-women are somehow physically disadvantaged with respect to natal female athletes”

    Cool, when Joanna Harper changes the consensus on the issue we maybe can say so. At the moment she seems to argue against it?

  34. starfleetdude says

    Telfer however was already competing on a high level in NCAA Division II Men’s track and field for years, if not in the elite but definitely in the top 200 in men’s track. So it isn’t as if Telfer was a poor athlete before transitioning. The point about training is that it helps one keep physical in good condition. It’s more reasonable to view Telfer as being a decent male athlete who after transitioning was superior to the natal women competition despite any effects of HRT.

  35. starfleetdude says

    At the moment she seems to argue against it?

    Harper seems to be looking to sociological explanations for why HRT doesn’t seem to negate male physiological advantages over females.

  36. John David Balla says

    #34 t90bb

    >>In the last few posts people have labelled/insinuated those that left irrational and immature. Do you think this is actually helping?

    In that it represents what people are actually feeling and trying their best to express themselves, having more data is preferable. So in that context, it is helpful.

  37. kkehno says

    “So it isn’t as if Telfer was a poor athlete before transitioning.”

    It seems that Cece has the “genes of athlete” but i would assume it being reasonable claim that had she not undergo hrt and had similar motivated and hard training, she would make even better improvements on her times. This is all still proves that hrt has a diminishing effect on transwoman athletes.

    “It’s more reasonable to view Telfer as being a decent male athlete who after transitioning was superior to the natal women competition despite any effects of HRT.”

    No it is not. Are you really saying that more hard training does not have effect? Because we just quoted both testimony that she did more work after transitioning. This to be valid example we would need her to maintain same level of training and commitment before and after. And if after that she maintained or ever improved the results, you could argue that hrt did not had any effect. Now with the information provided we can see that motivation and training can compensate this claimed loss of muscle and other sport related biological functions of the hrt if the athlete was not on the most top game before transitioning.

  38. AtheistNotAgnostic says

    @t90bb #34

    I love the ACA but I will be the first to admit how badly they botched this. Their initial reaction was a overreach and their eventual kiss up to Stephen was equally deplorable. (in my opinion obviously). Lets hope everyone involved learned something here. I have. My first reaction was to completely defend Stephen. Some reflection led me to see he was terribly reckless (as he has admitted). Although I don’t attribute hurtful intent he still needed to be held to account imho.

    This pretty closely resembles my current view of the situation. I don’t think he’s an anti-trans bigot. I too initially gave RR the benefit of the doubt but now that all of the videos are out (apology and correction) I’ve reassessed and come to the conclusion that he also fucked up royally. Seeing how he’s reacted to everything, I think it’s pretty clear that he put out the first video for bad reasons. It’s not like this was a “hot” topic in the atheist/skeptic community that people were begging him to wade into. He put the first video out unprompted, knowing full well that it would stir up shit, and when the shit went his way he cried persecution and compared himself to Galileo. He then went on to not apologize for starting this mess and paraded around a clip of one transgender activist that agreed with him the same way that conservatives love to bring up Candace Owens and Thomas Sowell to prove they’re not racists. This whole thing just reeks of shit stirring to “own the libs” by exposing the ones that RR knew would overreact irrationally (EoT, Janet, the ACA people who forced the rushed first statement) and using them to paint the entire opposition as “emotional”. This whole mess and the way RR and the ACA handled this just makes me want to puke.

  39. starfleetdude says

    It seems that Cece has the “genes of athlete” but i would assume it being reasonable claim that had she not undergo hrt and had similar motivated and hard training, she would make even better improvements on her times. This is all still proves that hrt has a diminishing effect on transwoman athletes.

    Or it shows that HRT doesn’t have that much effect on performance for trans-women athletes, and that the male advantages over females is not negated.

  40. starfleetdude says

    It’s not like this was a “hot” topic in the atheist/skeptic community that people were begging him to wade into.

    So? The fact that it currently is a controversial topic elsewhere (particularly in the U.K.) doesn’t exempt it from critical inquiry. If anything, it invites skeptics to explore it.

  41. PETER CUSHNIE says

    Okay, I’ve heard explanations for this before, but it never ceases to blow my mind. Caller Patrick claimed he had “incontrovertible proof” for his god. When he failed to present it, he switched tracks and brought up evolution, totally abandoning his original topic. As have so many others like him, he denied all evidence for evolution. Now, this is tantamount to denying that books are evidence of ideas, or that math is evidence of scientific thought. The metaphorical bookshelves are straining under the weight of the evidence he he turns a blind eye to. Patrick, if he were so inclined, could spend the rest of his life studying that evidence, if he could take his god glasses off long enough. But that isn’t all. No, he goes on to say that he has a bachelor’s degree of science in biology and that he is working on a masters degree in bio-medical science, fields that are heavily informed by evolutionary theory. I know, I’ve heard of compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance and the doublethink of 1984, but when you run right up against it, well, it’s hard to process.

  42. AtheistNotAgnostic says

    @starfleetdude #44

    So? The fact that it currently is a controversial topic elsewhere (particularly in the U.K.) doesn’t exempt it from critical inquiry. If anything, it invites skeptics to explore it.

    I never said that the topic shouldn’t be addressed or should be exempt from inquiry. I’m just saying that I don’t think RR jumped into the fray for good faith reasons. His original video was clearly below his usual standards (in it he cites Joe Rogan, Good Morning Britain and Fox News and repeatedly equated trans women with cis men). He then pulled a Galileo gambit when called out, used his “apology” video to stir more shit and dragged his feet on the correction video which prolonged the whole controversy. IMO this looks like someone trying to profit off of controversy, not someone who’s trying to apply skepticism to both sides of a controversy.

  43. starfleetdude says

    @46,

    I’m all for good skeptical inquiry, and certainly there is also bad. There do seem to be battle lines being drawn between the sides on this issue though, with the example of RR being used to shut down debate entirely.

  44. AtheistNotAgnostic says

    @starfleetdude #47
    I agree, we shouldn’t let RR being a dishonest attention whore or EoT crying wolf take away from the fact that there’s a discussion to be had here. I just don’t think that random atheists on the internet are the best people to be having this discussion right now. I’d rather just leave it to the scientists and the various sport regulating bodies figure out what works best for their sports and go from there.

  45. starfleetdude says

    @48,

    Given that other atheists are taking the position that self-identification is sufficient reason to believe that trans-women are women, I’m afraid that horse has long left the barn. Gender-critical feminists aren’t leaving it up to the scientists either, as the prospect of trans self-ID being legal in the U.K. and elsewhere is imminent. And while sports bodies have the authority to set rules for their sport, they are subject to national laws with respect to equal treatment, so if trans-women are women legally, they may not be barred from athletic competition with natal females. TL:DR; it’s political.

  46. Honey Tone says

    Peter –
    Don’t believe everything you hear. It’s not like random callers are fact-checked.

  47. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @kkehno #11:

    Has it been confirmed that Jen and Tracie left?

    John Iacoletti briefly said so before deciding to speak only for himself (Thread 23.19 – #372/#373). Later, there were formal announcements that Clare, Tracie, and Jen would no longer be doing Godless Bitches (#381/#383).
     

    Someone said that Phil also left

    I’m told, he wrote it “on his FB story”, which I do not have access to, but I linked a screenshot that had been sent to me. (#382)

  48. AtheistNotAgnostic says

    @starfleetdude #49

    Given that other atheists are taking the position that self-identification is sufficient reason to believe that trans-women are women

    You can count me as one of those atheists. I believe that there’s a debate to be had about the best ways to include trans and non-binary people in our current sport structure or whether the current structure of sex segregation is really the best way to do it, but I don’t believe that the existence of trans people is up for debate.

    And while sports bodies have the authority to set rules for their sport, they are subject to national laws with respect to equal treatment, so if trans-women are women legally, they may not be barred from athletic competition with natal females.

    Maybe this means we need to figure out a better way to create sport divisions than man/woman. Maybe not. I’m not sure.

  49. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    This is coming from me, someone who is pro LGBTQ+ rights, and my sister is trans, and I have no problem addressing her as “she”, etc., but I feel compelled to comment on this:

    How can it be “political ideology” if the consensus of the relevant experts and the medical field is that transwomen are women and should be treated as any woman.

    At first glance, I never knew what “trans-women are women” was supposed to mean. I still don’t really know what it’s supposed to mean.

    At least, I don’t think it’s a statement of biology, morphology, or neurology. I don’t think most trans advocates are making the argument “trans rights should be respected because we have evidence that certain processes go on during brain development in the womb that leads to someone with a male body but with a female brain, and vice versa”. I know that some trans advocates assert this claim as true, but they don’t say that respect of trans rights should depend solely on whether this claim is true or not. It seems that it would be dangerous to make trans rights conditional on the truth of this scientific claim.

    So, I don’t know what a commitment to the phrase “trans-women are women” could mean except a commitment to the moral and political position that trans-women should be treated as women for all intents and purposes, especially for social interactions i.e. addressing her as “her” instead of “him”. And as for that claim, I’m entirely on board, with perhaps a slight reservation for sports, but I don’t care enough about sports either way to express my position except on places like this, and always with disclaimers that I’d rather the women sort it out because it affects them and not me, and I have privilege-blindness as a cis het white male.

    PS: I also don’t understand how scientific experts could have special status on this question of morality and politics. Sure, they could address certain scientific questions like whether trans-women on HRT over a year have measurable advantages compared to cis-women, and that sort of input is very useful to the conversation, but I think that scientific experts are not privileged on making the final moral and political decisions, e.g. “given the scientific truths, what should we do from here?”.

  50. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @kkehno #11:
    Kendall Hopkins of Parenting Beyond Belief also left (#375/#376).
     
    Megan Bonner had hosted nearly every Secular Sexuality this year but has been absent for a while after 06.18 (May 2). On May 18, she was elected VP on the new board that took over at the beginning of June, so clearly she has NOT left the ACA.
     

    It would be nice to know what stance aca and axp have now on the issues recently brought up

    #196 – first ACA Statement
    #336 – second statement, the ACA Clarification, retracting the first, and further amended in apologize to RR in #349. (FB glitches for me looking at it, but I transcribed screenshots)
    #350 – all the Social Media Specialists and nearly all moderators of ACA’s various platforms signed a walkout statement

  51. AtheistNotAgnostic says

    @EL #53

    So, I don’t know what a commitment to the phrase “trans-women are women” could mean except a commitment to the moral and political position that trans-women should be treated as women for all intents and purposes, especially for social interactions i.e. addressing her as “her” instead of “him”.

    This is more or less what I understand the phrase to mean. I also have heard the claim from your first paragraph about the brain and body not matching up but I’ll fully admit that I haven’t done enough research into to understand how true that is or what percentage of the transgender community finds it important.

    Sure, they could address certain scientific questions like whether trans-women on HRT over a year have measurable advantages compared to cis-women, and that sort of input is very useful to the conversation, but I think that scientific experts are not privileged on making the final moral and political decisions, e.g. “given the scientific truths, what should we do from here?”.

    I’m in agreement here. The scientists should be providing data, but in the end it’s up to the sports leagues and players unions for those leagues to decide how to act on the information.

  52. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Okay, I’ve heard explanations for this before, but it never ceases to blow my mind. Caller Patrick claimed he had “incontrovertible proof” for his god. When he failed to present it, he switched tracks and brought up evolution, totally abandoning his original topic. As have so many others like him, he denied all evidence for evolution.

    It’s basically an “argument from ignorance” fallacy. In other words, “if you cannot tell me how it happened, then it must have been {fill in the blank}”.

    This person thinks that the only two choices on the table are 1- his version of Christianity, or 2- the specific modern form of evolutionary biology. Now, if that were true (and it’s not), then it would be correct that evidence against evolution would necessarily be evidence for Christianity. However, he’s overlooking a lot of other possibilities, which means that his effective argument is fallacious – a fallacious “appeal to ignorance” fallacy.

    For example, life on Earth and the diversity of species could be an alien experiment, and those aliens themselves could have arose through Darwinian evolution. The proposition seems ludicrous, but I say that it’s no more ludicrous than the standard young Earth creationist account of the diversity of species on Earth: some guy built a giant boat because a magic sky wizard told him to, and he gathered 2 (or 7) of every species and fit them on this boat, and he and only he survived this flood and no one else with other boats, etc. etc. As soon as you phrase it in clear language, the silliness of it becomes quite apparent. As soon as you reach this level of silliness, I can invent plenty of other silly competing ideas that are just as plausible as the magic-boat hypothesis.

  53. kkehno says

    @43 Actually the effect of HRT is not up to a debate. Consensus of the medical field is that it affects muscles and related biological features for sporting. The fact that trans athletes are affected of it is also not up to a debate. What might be up to a debate is the range of possibility of athlete to maintain sporting ability and muscle mass on hrt but i would like that fact to be studied at relevant field and not in a atheist blog. For your consideration:

    “You can also expect your muscle mass and strength to decrease significantly. To maintain muscle tone, and for your general health, I recommend you exercise. Overall, you may gain or lose weight once you begin hormone therapy, depending on your diet, lifestyle, genetics and muscle mass.”

    https://transcare.ucsf.edu/article/information-estrogen-hormone-therapy

    Even if we actually find a transwomen who had no effect who had no effect on hrt it would not prove that hrt has not effect. The effect is well established and so that one person needs to undergo further study to find out why she did not suffer same effects of hrt as all the other transwomen under hrt.

  54. kkehno says

    @Sky Captain

    I had short email exchange with Justin Looney and he confirmed that John, Jen, Tracy and even Phil have left the shows. Reasons for leaving are not stated so we kinda have to wait to someone of those saying it up straight.

  55. Murat says

    @kkehno
    I thought you were advocating that HRT was something that leveled trans women to cis women with regards to their anatomical advantages that affect competition.

  56. kkehno says

    @murat
    Are you claiming that all transwomen are necessarily always longer than any ciswomen? If not, the height of particular women is just a height she has.

  57. starfleetdude says

    The so-called Adam’s apple is larger in males than in females thanks to the influence of testosterone, and is therefore considered a secondary sexual characteristic. It isn’t just more noticeable, it’s larger.

    The Adam’s apple, in relation with the thyroid cartilage which forms it, helps protect the walls and the frontal part of the larynx, including the vocal cords (which are located directly behind it).

    Another function of the Adam’s apple is related to the deepening of the voice. During adolescence, the thyroid cartilage grows together with the larynx. Consequently, the laryngeal prominence grows in size mainly in men. Together, a larger soundboard is made up in phonation apparatus and, as a result, the man gets a deeper voice note.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_apple

  58. jabbly says

    @AtheistNotAgnostic

    Without trying to derail the thread, sporting bodies probably aren’t exactly well know for their ‘progressive’ policies. It wasn’t that long ago that the grande fromage of FIFA put forward the idea of raising the profile of Women’s Football by getting them to wear tighter shorts.

  59. Murat says

    The point about the Adam’s Apple was that, despite Joey might not be aware of, there are such things as male and female traits. And not all of them magically disappear when hormones are suppressed. Male-born people do not transform into their supposed female-born versions due to such treatment. That said, there are no available “female-born versions” of people for us to observe. Hence, in the case of trans athletes, the loop of references to HRT shows up persistently, as if the issue of fairness in sport is one limited to hormones. On average, men are taller than women because “Men tend to be taller than women, and during puberty boys typically experience a longer and more rapid period of growth. Girls usually stop growing taller by age 19, while boys continue until age 22. On average, men are up to 6 inches taller than women. These differences can be linked to chromosomes. Researchers have found that genetic variants on the X chromosomes are responsible for a range of distinctions between men and women, including height. People who possess some of these variants tend to be shorter. Because genetically women tend to have two X chromosomes, they are more likely to have these gene variations.” For the past 6 weeks, hundreds of posts appeared on the related pages of this blog and many people made their points. It might be good to check up on that particular bulk of takes before saying things like “every women has a different height anyway”. The discussion emerges from the fact that currently there is a sex-based separation of categories in sports, one that finds its reasons from the biological differences, including height and width, hence, transwomen’s inclusion among ciswomen might be problematic on a level of fairness for some sports. The average heights of cis men and post-puberty trans women are the same, and the average heights of cis women and post-puberty trans men (which, again, are the same for the same reason!) are below that. What is “progressive” may and should be open to discussion, just like toleration of certain biological advantages can reasonably be accepted, especially considering the inclusive role of sports. A bit of unfairness on the field may more than be welcome if it will help establish something more valuable overall, socially. But this should not derail us from acknowledging facts.

  60. kkehno says

    It still is not relevant because persons height is not shown to be factor if they end up being a trans or are interested of career on sports as trans. It would matter if it could be shown that all trans athlete are taller than ciswoman atheletes but in reality some women are taller and some are shorter being trans or not. And it is actually is already considered when there are weight classes because person being taller usually has more height too.

  61. Murat says

    It still is not relevant because persons height is not shown to be factor if they end up being a trans or are interested of career on sports as trans.

    Can you try to articulate this better? I don’t understand what your point is.
    What does one’s “interest” in something have to do with them having or not having an unfair biological advantage on the field?

    It would matter if it could be shown that all trans athlete are taller than ciswoman atheletes but in reality some women are taller and some are shorter being trans or not.

    No. No. No. The reason for the average trans woman to be taller than the average cis woman is obvious. When the point of discussion is a group, you look for what is average with the group. Saying that women differ in size already sweeps away all the reason for there to be different categories for men and women. As cited above, the reason for the height difference between the two sexes is obvious. Would it have been great if there was a way to shift all biological traits of one to make sure their transition perfect? Yes, of course. But this is not what the situation is now. Treatments and operations approximate people’s needs and desires for the transition to be as good as it gets. The trick with the fairness in sports thing, as articulated by Noel Plum, is that “close enough is never close enough when the issue is sports”, because what matters in competition is already the very tiny differences.

    And it is actually is already considered when there are weight classes because person being taller usually has more height too.

    True. Apply this to basketball and the thing about height and width will cease to be a problem with regards to whether it is fair for trans women to play against cis women. I know of no such weight class in basketball.

  62. jabbly says

    @kkehno

    Are all biological males taller than biological females, nope there biological males should be able to compete in a category for biological females.

    The plural of bad arguments is not a good argument.

  63. kkehno says

    “Can you try to articulate this better? I don’t understand what your point is.”

    Your point being valid would mean that only those of that are tall are participating on athletics (or that there is over representation of women with trans background). When women are some shorter some taller the type of sport would select those being taller if the being tall gives one advantage on that particular sport. Having that height by male puberty or other vice would not mean no difference at all.

    Even if i would agree for the sake of argument that being more tall means having automatic advantage on all different type of sports, it still would not be grounds to bar transwomen from participation. This fact that you are so eager to penalize whole group for only some minority tells me that this all is just a exercise to find good enough reason to ban all transperson.

    Would not the logical conclusion to be, on this particular case, that best we could go from this advantage is to either have height classes on those type of sport that has demonstrated height to be significant factor (like mentioned basketball) or just ban those particular persons that are above some defined average of height. If we would do that we end up doing the Caster Semenya scenario over again and making it look like we actually do not care for women sport but are there just on a effort to be bigoted against transpersons.

    If you did not read my previous comments the being taller can be argued to be more of a hindrance than a advantage. On hrt your muscle mass goes down with your hemoglobin making you carry more body weight with less power. Analogy would be that we made different kind of bikes for men and women (for some reason). Those bikes designed for women tend to be little lighter than those made for men. If you want to race with bicycle uphill the “womens bike” would be better being lighter and there fore more easy to paddle. If you want to race downhill the “mens bike” would be better because with added weight you get better speed. This whole scenario to me looks like its argued that its unfair to women to ride mens bike on uphill race because it has unfair advantage. No, being taller is not automatic advantage and even if it could be shown to be advantage, it still is not grounds to penalize all transpersons.

    “Are all biological males taller than biological females, nope there biological males should be able to compete in a category for biological females.”

    But they can? And they do? Biology this, biology that, the experts on the field have agreed that transwomen on hrt is leveled enough to be able to compete in womens class without there being an actual demonstration of unfair advantage. If you want to argue against the consensus of the experts then please do.

  64. jabbly says

    @kkehno

    Well firstly you clearly haven’t understood the concept of fairness in sports. Secondly, I’m glad you’ve thrown out the bigot card as that demonstrates your position. Thank you for that.

  65. kkehno says

    @jabbly

    Could you elaborate what part of the concept of fairness in sports i do not understand. And maybe tell me also why my comprehension is so important when i can just point to like Olympic committee and that this is their position also. Are they not getting the concept of fairness also?

    And yes, I oppose the bigotry against transpeople. One would think that this was made clear from my first post on the subject?

  66. jabbly says

    @kkehno

    Well obviously you don’t understand the concept of fairness in sports. Maybe you should have thought about that before you waded in with your size nines saying it is fair. Just a thought.

  67. Murat says

    @kkehno
    I never even used the words “ban” or “penalize”.
    How did you draw the conclusion what I was arguing was something like that?
    The narrative you refer to makes it look like biological males can be turned into biological females without carrying any traits of physical superiority. My perception is that, many people like you are fed with this explanation so well that, you go on and cherrypick the data that makes it look true. The human body is a complex system. Even after a small injury, you can not claim to have recovered to the point of being your exact earlier self 100%. Skip the injury thing, you never even can become your yesterday self 100%, there’s constant change and too many metrics involved. 99.99999% is as good as it gets.
    The kind of flawed reasoning you apply to this requires us to think that people become their female selves after treatment and/or operation. That point of reference is just an abstraction. It is something we never had in hand to begin with. It ain’t observable. For the issue is about how transition affects physical capabilities, we just have to think along the lines of average man vs. average woman. The argument that height becomes a disadvantage after HRT makes sense. I believe there may be many other disadvantages that come with transition, even those that have yet to be explored. I have two separate issues with this: 1) For fairness in sport requires one to compete to their best, I have a problem on a theoretical level with anything that causes one to perform worse. But let’s skip this for now as it may look too philosophical in comparison to the latter. 2) Notable groups of people with certain advantages and disadvantages may compete in separate divisions, as is the case with Paralympics. If there are any sports branches that spotlight certain features that just can not be leveled due to HRT, then, those with the very same set of advantages can compete against each other under such a roof. Just like the weight categories you mention. I do not understand why it’s gotta be a “must” for trans women to compete with cis women in order to be integrated better into sports. If what you are doing is something that is done better thanks to having been born a male biologically, then, isn’t it like Kramer’s Dojo in spirit, even if not to that extent, to confront born-females? I think the reason this debate goes on and on and on is that it touches on a very critical issue about how we perceive reality and tend to back our positions up with selected data. There may be some “progressive agenda” involved here, and yes, it should be supported, but I get the feeling people are literally trying to put forward “progressive scientific data”, which is absurd, as the data just has to be produced and presented in an objective manner so that we can figure out what the “preference” in question actually is.

  68. kkehno says

    “I never even used the words “ban” or “penalize”.”

    So you just want to say it is unfair but no action must be taken for that? That is weird. All the other people who are concerned seem to be wanting there to be action taken for some extent or another. If you just want to point things out and not want anything done with them then i apologize for misunderstanding you.

    “The narrative you refer to makes it look like biological males can be turned into biological females without carrying any traits of physical superiority.”

    I actually did not argue anything like that. Are you here to make strawman? I would argue i have bit better understanding how the transitioning and being a transperson affect individual. Knowing many trans person on person and being one myself.

    “1) For fairness in sport requires one to compete to their best, I have a problem on a theoretical level with anything that causes one to perform worse.”

    If you scroll up and see the story about woman besting her time after being able to transition to her actual gender. Does this not justify that 1) everyone needing to transition must have opportunity to 2) they get to compete as their best (as that women on that case. What if she was barred for running at all because of this unfair advantage?)

    “If there are any sports branches that spotlight certain features that just can not be leveled due to HRT, then, those with the very same set of advantages can compete against each other under such a roof.”

    Sure, but it has to be actually proven to be so, not just asserted. And it hast to be done by actual expert on the field and not by some random people on atheist blogs. If there is a clear unbiased demonstration, i will accept it to be true. The Kramer’s Dojo was actually good analogy for this because in the end we found out that the superiority of Kramer was not actually even superiority but a grand weakness. I believe you did not consider the ending of it 😀

    “I do not understand why it’s gotta be a “must” for trans women to compete with cis women in order to be integrated better into sports.”

    Because we live in a society that is bigoted against transwomen and every time there is focus how those women with trans background are not exactly women, bigots get justification for bigotry. It was seen clearly after the Rationality Rules video when the video was used by bigots, against those women with trans background, as a hammer. Even after the RR admitted that video having flaws. I would argue that it is society obligation to protect those on vulnerable positions rather than legitimize bigotry. And therefore not exclude women from competing sports if there is not CLEAR and DEMONSTRATED reason to do so.

    If there is an actual data to prove these claims the relevant expert would know about them and change their policies accordingly. Fact that transpeople have been able to race on olympics for what 15years and there still not being a clear demonstration tells me that people wanting there to be one are not in the game on fairness but have some other agenda. And i am not claiming that you or even jabbly are guilty of this. I just have hard time differentiating those that mean harm and those who lack sensitivity because they are not affected by issues of trans personally.

    (And sorry if my English is bit unclear time to time, it is my third language.)

  69. Murat says

    @kkehno

    I would argue i have bit better understanding how the transitioning and being a transperson affect individual. Knowing many trans person on person and being one myself.

    I’d like to learn of your personal observations on the issue. You haven’t specified it, but assuming you are a trans woman, your first hand examples of how you feel and do in terms of strength (before and after) should be notable.

    Sure, but it has to be actually proven to be so, not just asserted.

    This is exactly what I don’t get: Your are saying that the default position with regards to trans athletes’ proper categories is the one of the sex they have transitioned to. How come? Why is this particular notion (correct or not) the deault one, whereas “people should compete in categories relating to their birth sexes” would be an “assertion”?

    If there is an actual data to prove these claims the relevant expert would know about them and change their policies accordingly.

    Dunno why, but there is this tendency to mistake scientific accuracy with the supposed unbiased attitude of “experts”. As if the “top men” in any given field are exempt from social or administrative pressure, much less their own inclinations. I suggest you watch that video of Noel Plum and see how a report on the issue contradicts in its opening statement and its conclusion.

  70. kkehno says

    @murat

    I fail to see how what kind of a transperson i am matters to the topic 😀 But if you must know you assumed wrong. I am nonbinary amab. You know, one of those that are claimed not to exist. I volunteer on a peer support group so i just dont move with my own assumptions, i have talked to many different kind of transperson on differing topics. But the effect of hrt on women with trans background is totally not up to a debate. They have made it available for quite many years and if there is no effect, the medical experts would know and if there would be a way to maintain same muscles by diet or anything, the transpersons would know. It is important to anyone to have some muscles and helping to accept women, that they have to be ready to make more work to maintain health, is not easy task.

    “This is exactly what I don’t get: Your are saying that the default position with regards to trans athletes’ proper categories is the one of the sex they have transitioned to. How come? Why is this particular notion (correct or not) the deault one, whereas “people should compete in categories relating to their birth sexes” would be an “assertion”?”

    Well, i am saying that but i have specified many times that it is not just my opinion it is also how things are in the sports world. And doing the asserted “comptete in categories relating your sex on birth” ends up making cases like Magg Becks. Even not considering damage done to him (forced to be out, not being able to compete with peers, etc) i would claim this has made many potential athlete not to try their changes (to compete to their best) for fear of having to face same as Magg. And what about the girls he was forced to compete against? If you are unfamiliar with the case you can read about it from here https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-texas-girls-title

    “As if the “top men” in any given field are exempt from social or administrative pressure, much less their own inclinations.”

    Sure, but if there is such thing, it can be demonstrated. Even if the Richad Carrier has fallen out of favor, when he made a argument for jesus being a mythical person, he did honestly represent the consensus of the field and tried to make a case for why it is not the most right one. To be taken seriously these arguments need to start with the actual facts of the current state and address why is it so and can there made case that the policies need to be more akin to Maggs case or whatever the person making argument things is the best.

  71. starfleetdude says

    And they can and will nowadays remove/reduce the adams apple on such occasions.

    Cosmetic surgery can remove tissue, but it won’t change the fact that the voice is lower due to undergoing puberty as a male. HRT won’t change the voice either. Not that this directly relates to athletic performance, but it is an example of how a sex characteristic doesn’t change with transition.

  72. kkehno says

    @starfleetdude

    Actually, on men with trans background the hrt makes a hella lot a difference. The hrt on women wont make as big of a difference but they can actually train their voice to be more “womenly”. There seems to be many how-to videos on youtube but i just link this here for no reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiPZpd8SoGs .And it can be permanent. So sorry to say, you are actually wrong with this.

  73. starfleetdude says

    #82,

    You can pitch your voice to be higher and affect a more feminine voice, as any actor playing a woman’s part can tell you. It doesn’t change your vocal chords though.

  74. kkehno says

    Why should it need to change vocal chords? Nobody in the world will know the actual state of vocal chords on the person in video but most of them agree that she has voice of a woman. Gets back to “transwoman are not woman because their chromosomes did not change!” argument. If it is something that nobody gets to see for them self, it should not matter.

  75. starfleetdude says

    Sometimes though a deep voice can’t be disguised, and I’ve met a trans-woman whose own deep voice was not something that could be retrained to sound like the voice of a woman. So sometimes physical attributes do matter and can’t be changed with a change of mind. That other male characteristics aren’t easily changed, for instance height, is also something that other people can and do see. That doesn’t mean I don’t accept them as a trans-woman, but that doesn’t mean that makes them female either.

  76. kkehno says

    #85

    You cant argue from single case to general. Maybe there are some that can not do that but that wont change the fact that many other can. All of these facts just speak for need to have hormone blockers available to children who ponder if they are trans.

    There are many tall women and i would argue that Bee Arthur were taller than most transwomen. Luckily no-ones legitimacy is up to strarfleetdudes approval on atheist blog 🙂

  77. ianbraisby says

    Fascinating as it may be to some people, please can we have a thread about issues discussed in the show forming the title of the thread. There are ample other places where the sport/trans/RR/ACA stuff has been done to death and where discussions are surely continuing. Personally I’m sick of it taking over every week’s thread on this blog.

  78. jabbly says

    @ianbraisby

    Well I did say that early on but as that didn’t work I decided to join in instead.

  79. starfleetdude says

    #86,

    It’s certainly not up to my approval what anyone wishes to think about themselves. I can and do think for myself, obviously, and others (such as ianbraisby) are free to ignore them when I post them. 🙂 With respect to hormone blockers for pre-pubescent children though, there has to be a consideration about whether or not that’s medically advisable based on pondering alone, given the effect the puberty-blocking hormones may have on their physical development and sexual fertility. I share the concerns of those who think that boys and girls who feel distress about their sexuality might be better served not by transitioning but by accepting that they’re homosexual.

  80. kkehno says

    “I share the concerns of those who think that boys and girls who feel distress about their sexuality might be better served not by transitioning but by accepting that they’re homosexual.”

    Wait, what. Have you heard this thing called gender dysphoria? Being a trans has nothing to do with ones sexuality and to prove that i would point out that term “transsexual” has fallen off when used by professionals preferring the term transgender. Not all those that are trans are also gay. Some even jokingly say that after transitioning they magically became heteros.

  81. starfleetdude says

    Yes, I’m familiar with the concept of G.D. and think that blocking hormones that inhibit adolescent sexual development is a treatment that is potentially harmful to the child. Conflating gender with biological sex is a misstep with respect to that, IMO.

  82. kkehno says

    So you would rather that we force afab:s to grow breast and feminine statue only to have them medically removed few years later? Or amab to grow beard only to have it removed it later? It is really expensive. I think it would be better if we gave said persons some time to think and minimize need for surgery and body alteration when they have to pay for it them self. How bout those who clearly are distressed about the wrong puberty that they are forced to go trough and end up harming them self. It sounds quite cruel :/

  83. starfleetdude says

    Personally, I would rather we recognize that biological sex is a fact and isn’t something that’s just casually assigned at birth, rather than have anyone feel they have to undergo any sort of physical trauma (like breast binding) to conform to a gendered role. Rather than force bodies to conform to a particular gender, I’d change things so that men were free to act feminine and women to act masculine, instead of promoting the notion that one’s physical body should conform to some sexist notion of gender.

  84. kkehno says

    This is issue is close to me because “accepting that i am homosexual” was not maybe the worst thing for me but it was bad and caused me a lot of pain. I felt guilty for not being able to feel among peers with other gay men and the fact that i accepted myself being a homosexual blocked me for many years to found out who i really am and why i have such hard time when trying to get same level with other gay men. It may feel as a good enough compromise for you but i can tell from personal experience, it is not. In a long run it may cause even more pain and suffering than not be accepting being a gay. After moving past the label homosexual my life got better and i have finally found my peers.

  85. kkehno says

    “Rather than force bodies to conform to a particular gender, I’d change things so that men were free to act feminine and women to act masculine, instead of promoting the notion that one’s physical body should conform to some sexist notion of gender.”

    I do agree 🙂 and in a perfect world that would be great. But now that we are living in a world that has sexist notions of gender we kinda have to deal with this world and maybe to the prep work to the world we hope to someday be living in.

  86. jacobfromlost says

    Kirsty Alley, Lauren Bacall, Kathleen Turner. I always found them to have sexy voices. If anyone cares.

  87. Murat says

    @kkehno
    I had assumed you were likely to be a trans woman because the topic (fairness in sports) is mostly about trans women competing against cis women. There is a good reason why even the experiences of athletes who are trans women would help at most 50% for this discussion: Because on the other end, there are cis women. And, by definition, there can not be any trans women who were previously cis women. The transition is from biological males. Hence, the two parties involved have never had one common individual conscience to go through both experiences. As I had previously written elsewhere on this blog, I also believe that secondary things like never having experienced PMS accumulate to what might count as uneven starting points between cis and trans women.

    Gets back to “transwoman are not woman because their chromosomes did not change!” argument. If it is something that nobody gets to see for them self, it should not matter.

    It might, depending on the context.
    Thanks for not throwing in a “real” between the “not” and the “woman” there, because it further derails the discussion into obliviousness. I believe that a trans woman should have all the right to conceal where she is coming from on a social level, but that it would be totally unethical to do the same in different contexts, like what Louis CK’s character experienced in that scene:

  88. kkehno says

    “There is a good reason why even the experiences of athletes who are trans women would help at most 50% for this discussion”

    I would say it helps 100% when dealing the issue directly concerning is it fair to them to compete?

    “And, by definition, there can not be any trans women who were previously cis women”

    This to be true it would mean that those women that are trans magically became women at some time after transitioning. But we can not hold the transition being the thing that makes you real because even those people have trans identities who because of medical reason can not undergo transition or live somewhere where it is not possible to do (places where being trans gets you killed or there not being medical professionals to help you out). Women with trans background feel being women their whole life and not being able to live as a girl at young age and get the right puberty the first time around does not make them not women. Maybe women with not typical childhood but that should not matter. It really is not that they are man all their lives and one day they just decide it would be fun to be women. And again, this is not just my personal opinion, i have talked to several women with background and they all confirmed that they had the experience of being a woman from very start.

    Analogy here would be that there are those that live in a religious families but end up not believing to religion on young age. If they are made still go to church and are told lies about what being an atheist is or denying even the knowledge of it, they might even end up with identity of being part of religious organization. If they later found out that there was knowledge held from them and they transition to be atheist on later life, it would not make any difference that they actually did not believe on any god even if they were affiliated with some religious group their whole life. Transwomen have been women from start, all of them just have not not allowed to be honestly who they are and made to act certain way because the ignorance of their families.

    “I also believe that secondary things like never having experienced PMS accumulate to what might count as uneven starting points between cis and trans women.”

    Even if it is some magical thing that makes some difference, it is not up to you.

    “but that it would be totally unethical to do the same in different contexts”

    Yeah, the medical professionals may need to know. But i do not need to know with the rest of world that Magg Becks is a transperson (getting back to fairness on sport).

  89. Robink says

    Great. so we’ve replaced endless Kafei debates every week with endless trans-in-sports debates every week, zzz….

    This episode was probably the most fired up I’ve seen Matt, I guess that’s what happens when you get several callers in a row ring up to defend biblical slavery… Like, is that really the hill these people want to die on?

  90. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    And, by definition, there can not be any trans women who were previously cis women

    This to be true it would mean that those women that are trans magically became women at some time after transitioning.

    What? kkehno, are you sure that you read that right? Your response makes no sense. I suggest that you go back, read it again, and slowly this time, and then try to respond coherently. It seems that you’re on autopilot, responding to points that you expect, but not the point that was actually made.

  91. kkehno says

    Yes i did read it right. I am trying to point out that it does not matter if the transwomen were ciswomen or not. Pedantically yes, you are right but it is irrelevant.

  92. kkehno says

    But now that i think of this, there actually can. Someone could technically transition from female to male and for some reason years later decide to transition back to women. So there we would have a transwomen were previously ciswomen. It probably wont happen that often but it can happen.

  93. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To kkehno
    Just stop. You made a mistake. Admit the mistake, and move on. Stop digging the hole. This:

    But now that i think of this, there actually can. Someone could technically transition from female to male and for some reason years later decide to transition back to women. So there we would have a transwomen were previously ciswomen. It probably wont happen that often but it can happen.

    This is colossally missing the point. This is cheap-point scoring, and nothing more. This is not honest engagement. This is sniveling face-saving dishonesty.

  94. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PS:
    You’re also wrong on the pedantic face-saving. Every definition that I’ve seen defines “trans” and “cis” as whether your gender preference matches the sex that you were assigned at birth, and that does not change. So even if a cis-woman undergoes sex reassignment surgery and hormones to male-gender, and then does it again to female-gender, that is still a cis-woman according to the only definition of “cis” and “trans” that I’ve ever seen.

  95. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PPS:
    Apologies for incorrectly using “it” to refer to a trans-person. I really should have used “they”. F’ing English and its inadequate pronouns.

  96. Murat says

    @kkehno

    I would say it helps 100% when dealing the issue directly concerning is it fair to them to compete?

    No.
    I can not even fathom how you fail to see this, but it is cis women who are suspected to be victims of unfairness.
    You can not set up a court where you will listen only to the defendant and not take into consideration claims by the plaintiff.
    And no, the way you interpret “gender fluidity” is nothing but a refusal to acknowledge biological facts. This is the whole point of this particular discussion, and where it stems from. This is why it’s been taking so long to address the related issues. No, it was not up to any of us to decide where and as what we were to be born. A born-female can not transition to a man to the extent that now they will experience manhood just the same as a born-male would, and then transition back to a female so they can comment on what it was like to compete in sports as a cis woman and then as a trans woman. Even if she was once a cis woman (debatable, in and of itself) she never was a trans woman. There is on and off switch with the chromosomes and their multiple, complicated effects. You are imagining a realm where nature has put no hard barriers in front of people’s, say, “desires” or “accommodation”. This is what I find toxic about the issue. The arguments pushed in to support trans rights bring with perceptional wrongs on some instances. This example of double-crossing you gave was one. I don’t think the deconstruction of biology can help with any case involving rights, inclusion or fairness. I believe the pumped-up version of this perception has already begun to give harm on some level. The news article below is no joke. People who are not comfortable in their biological sexes should of course be respected with their transitions and genders, but no, you can not act like we are already in some science-fiction / fantasy where we exist as brains in jars and can be placed into host bodies of whichever sex we desire, whenever we feel like. That being desireable or not is a separate issue. We are not there, and not only socially, but also in terms of science, no, we are not even close enough to such a realm where it might make some sense to deliberately confuse kids about reality:
    https://www.thepostmillennial.com/ontario-family-files-human-rights-complaint-after-six-year-old-girl-upset-by-gender-theory-in-school/

  97. Murat says

    @Robink
    I think there is something quite relevant to dogmatism here. I believe that is why it’s become a magnet of some sort for the blog posts. On some level, a portion of the LGBTQ community may have been indoctrinated with a particular way of thinking that is not at all, at least not for the moment, compatible with “reality”, and this may be why the claim of bigotry on this specific issue has become equivalent with heresy.

  98. kkehno says

    “So even if a cis-woman undergoes sex reassignment surgery and hormones to male-gender, and then does it again to female-gender, that is still a cis-woman according to the only definition of “cis” and “trans” that I’ve ever seen.”

    It would require the person always being trans? Maybe it is the language issue but it is my opinion that on does become trans at the moment they transition. Cis having the definition it has maybe excludes those that end up transitioning but it is not reasonable to claim one be trans before the transition. Maybe we need another term for it but if the person acts like the gender assigned on them on birth and seems not wanting to change it, one could argue that that person is cis to a point that they realize that actually they are not. For this point i would remind that the GD goes worse at the time of puberty and it sets of for many the issue of transitioning or just being a trans. Seeing that others start growing breasts and you are told that it wont happen to you. Being content of being cis to that point could be argued to happen.

    Maybe we need new term for this but it is problematic to call someone trans before transition :/ I have actually talked in person to some bit more elder transperson who told me them self that they have lived most of their life with content of the gender assigned with them and only in elder years found out not being cis anymore. How can we tell if particular person is going to be at some time trans? We kinda have to assume everyone being cis to that point that they tell as other vice.

    And it is not a hypothetical issue either. We know full well that certain portion of women end up transition back to be a male. Not because they realize not being a woman but because they are not prepared to live as a women in a society and want to take their changes with GD.

    “but it is cis women who are suspected to be victims of unfairness”

    Here we go back to transwomen are not exactly women and therefore not deserving to be treated same as ciswomen. IF there is a unfairness, it can be shown to be there. Till we have actual case to make for this we do harm excluding some women from sports and on society. Because until there is actual demonstration, it is the transpersons who are victims. Forced to be out. Be under suspicion etc. Like the case i mentioned earlier.

    And what biological facts i fail to acknowledge? It was just argued that because hrt wont change the voice it means that those that have deep voice are not really women. What about Bee Arthur? She had more deep voice than most men but it did not seem to be reason to question her womanhood. It has been brought up many times that because those women cant have children they are not actually women till someone pointed to these people that not all ciswomen can have children either. Now we move to PMS being the one true magical thing that makes a REAL women like this kind of argument would not be a massive sharpshooter fallacy.

    If the mods think we should not be having this discussion here i will honor their decision. Can John or someone say if we need to quit this?

  99. Murat says

    @kkehno

    Here we go back to transwomen are not exactly women and therefore not deserving to be treated same as ciswomen.

    What does the first assertion have to do with the second part that you assert? Trans women are trans women. Cis women are cis women. Trans women are not cis women.

    Because until there is actual demonstration, it is the transpersons who are victims. Forced to be out.

    Out of what? Like any other woman, they are free to compete in men’s categories. The problem emerges when trans women are represented in a fashion to make it look like trans women and cis women are of the same biological features. They are not. Not to the extent of making the case that HRT can erase all male traits relevant to being born-males. I wish it did, and maybe someday science will make sure it can. But this is not the reality we live in. Acknowledging the possibility of an extra layer of unfairness does not necessarily mean to propose a “ban” for trans women from women’s categories. Picking up conditions of a portion of cis women to make the point that “there really is not that much of a thing that makes a woman a woman and a man a man” is weird, and it can make sense if and only if the proposition to come with this approach is to merge men’s and women’s categories altogether. And I fail to see why this is not your argument.

    Maybe we need new term for this but it is problematic to call someone trans before transition

    Regardless of what new term we can come up with, facts are facts.
    See, this is exactly why I think there is some dogmatism involved here: Just like Christians trying to resort to semantics to make slavery look like it was never condoned, a particular group of SJWs are repeating the notion that we can change reality by changing our perspective. And you know what, yes, this may be the case from time to time. Changing your way of perceiving things can really solve a problem. But not always. If HRT was shown to make trans women shorter, if it erased every residue of male trait in their system, then we would not really need to play with words so much, would we?
    Let’s face it: Some people are uncomfortable with the sexes they were born as. Can I build empathy with them? Let’s see: I have always been comfortable with being a straight male. But being that is not exactly a comfort zone in and of itself. Maybe I could go through puberty better if I was better looking, or taller, or smarter, or whatever. So, yes, I can relate to people not being fully okay with their starting points in life. But it is what it is. I don’t understand why we are even trying to make it look like one can be in perfect harmony with his/her body or conditions. No, we can’t. Life is hard. People not having the kind of problems trans women go through are going through different problems the effects of which may be just as tough. The example of that hypothetical person who was born a female but then transitioned to a man and then became a trans woman… Well, sorry, but I think he/she is taking a terrible path. If you are that uncomfortable with your body, maybe what you need to adjust is not the body. If semantics are the answer, then let’s apply it to that hypothetical and tell me why he/she has to go through an adventure of indefinite changes rather than just change the means of expression, setting and thinking. The level of egoistic perception in that particular hypothetical sounds unethical to me. If I were that person, I would try to spend my time and energy to solve someone else’s more immediate problems. I wouldn’t spend money on changing and re-changing sex in a world where there was so huge ecological problems, child deaths, starvation, etc. That hypothetical, to be honest, is repulsive for me because it reflects an bottomless well of self-absorption. The example reminds me of people who so fucking much money that they change their cars every month just our of boredom.
    Advocacy of trans rights can seriously backfire if we go to these lengths. Yes we should try to accommodate everyone into the social common ground as best we can, but it will never be 100% satisfaction for anyone, it never was, no one ever lived in such perfect harmony with themselves and their surroundings, and it really would have been more like a gilded hell than a heaven to envy. Look at all the mythology, gods can’t sustain such perfection and go ballistic on each other, comfort zones are cool things to seek, but not really ideal settings for the human mind to rest forever.

  100. kkehno says

    “Trans women are not cis women”

    But they are both women. And for excluding other needs to have good reasons.

    “Out of what? Like any other woman, they are free to compete in men’s categories.”

    Out of closet. You know, forced to be outed as a transperson? That we all know that Mack Beggs is a transperson did he want us to know or not. Are women free to compete in mens categories? I find this hard to believe.

    “make it look like trans women and cis women are of the same biological features”

    If the relevant experts on the field have deemed it to be so, it is reasonable to say that they are in a level playing field.

    ” And I fail to see why this is not your argument.”

    Dont worry about it 🙂

    If the definition for cisgender is: “Cisgender is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth.” those elderly people were cis to a point they were not anymore. You can see the same if you have children that is not fitting with the gender roles you can allow them to grow as a “tomboy” or “feminine boy” and they can be content with it. And at the time of puberty it hits them to think are they just not typical representation of the gender assigned from them or are they trans. And as long as it can go both ways from there i think it would be reasonable to say that in both cases they were cis to that point and the other became trans after that maybe.

    “If HRT was shown to make trans women shorter, if it erased every residue of male trait in their system, then we would not really need to play with words so much, would we?”

    I seems like the experts on the field do not have this need to really play with the words but only you guys that want there to be a issue. We still have to face every athlete as an individual and can not penalize them because they belong to some group. Like arguing that the black persons do run so fast because of their genes and it is unfair so they need to be held back so they wont have unfair advantage.

    “I don’t understand why we are even trying to make it look like one can be in perfect harmony with his/her body or conditions.”

    This is a massive straw man. Those men with the the t background know that at this moment they can not have a perfect penis. Some like Buck Angel choose to make peace with being a man with a pussy and some make other choices. It is not ever being for some magical perfect harmony but better or worse ways to deal with the GD.

    “he example of that hypothetical person who was born a female but then transitioned to a man and then became a trans woman… Well, sorry, but I think he/she is taking a terrible path. If you are that uncomfortable with your body, maybe what you need to adjust is not the body.”

    What if it is not even about the person in question. If we would go to see those fallen for religion and conversion therapy for trans, im certain we could find some transman who just have been made to believe that being a woman is something jesus wanted from them and some greater good will be achieved if they just deal with pain and anxiety that pretending to be women causes them. The fact that you see this just as a intellectual issue and are blind to fact that this kind of scenario is real and is happening right now is telling. And living more religious parts of country they will be forced to go trough these tortures for not wanting to end being homeless. Like it is just a coincidence that transpeople are over represented of those youth that are kicked out from home.

    “but it will never be 100% satisfaction for anyone”

    I know that there will always be bigotry against transpeople as there will always be bigotry against gays. I would be really happy even if we could make it so that those that are trans are not over represented as the most vulnerable portion on a society. Is it unreasonable to ask for that?

  101. Lamont Cranston says

    kkehno says

    If the mods think we should not be having this discussion here i will honor their decision. Can John or someone say if we need to quit this?

    Perhaps you have not noticed. John is gone from the ACA as are most, if not all of, the other moderators. The exception may be whoever starts the new thread each week (no idea who that is), but they have given no indication that they perform any other moderation activities.

    Lamont Cranston

  102. t90bb says

    kkehno

    Serious question….are you even open to the possibility that transwomen could have an advantage in certain sports/situations??? Is that even something that you are open to seriously consider. And if so what would you be willing to do about it??

  103. kkehno says

    #112

    John made a post earlier stating that he will still be moderating till the aca board decides that he should not anymore. I would think he would make a note i that happened. This blog not being moderated is not a thing i want :/

    #113

    Yes and yes. I even gave and example of advantage that could be with the uphill downhill bicycle races. But in those type of sports, where mass is the thing that makes advantage, they usually have weight classes already. I think it was on EoT response video that in weight lifting the women do not have as many classes on the far end of weight so that maybe one thing to fix?

    I do not know what i should be willing to do if there is clear demonstration of advantage. I am not expert on the field nor have i any say of policies concerning the athletic world. I would accept it as an example and bring it up from that point onward as a advantage that is deemed to be unfair? And probably make some legwork to find what the response to it is in the actual field where they make the choices. I am pretty sure that there is some sport where the situation is so but getting back not being expert and having to rely on those experts…

    Do you have something on your mind that you think would be fair to me to do?

  104. Murat says

    @kkehno
    What I meant by saying there would never be 100% satisfaction for anyone was that no one will ever fit their desired identities both into their skin and into society in a seamless, perfect way. People who concentrate too much on this are likely to misinterpret the point about having an authentic identity. You can have no trace of bigotry whatsoever in your life, yet, you may keep not being comfortable. Given that you accept there may be unfairness (against others) when trans women compete with cis women, you already have the understanding that bigotry might not be the keyword for every aspect of a particular identity and its required struggles. If the double-crossing person in your hypothetical actually existed, I’d like to ask them what they believed the consequences in their quest could be, what they knew to be risking, what they ultimately tried to achieve. Because all these concepts are inevitably intertwined when you sail out to sea on an ocean of mystery, and not every obstacle you face should have something to do with other people.

  105. says

    What tiny percent of ANY population is involved in the higher levels of professional sports? What even tinier percent is non-professional, and of world-class performance level who wishes to compete in the highest level of competition aka the Olympics etc?

    I can’t imagine the percentage of transpeople being higher than any other population in sports, and could perhaps somewhat lesser considering the financial cost of transitioning. and the cost of taking time to train at that level.

    So what the hell are you all yelling about? This is not impending doom, not something that has to be dealt with in the next month. AND it is not something that non-trans people and sport authorities should have any input in. RR said some nonsense about how women’s sport was “threatened” by trans women. Just how many trans women are storming the Olympics compared to all the cis women involved.?

    It is very strange to me that the loudest voices talking about seems to be cis men. It is like men having huge, endless debates about birth control and abortion. It really is not for you guys to decide.

    If there is a problem with trans women in sports, it is to be dealt with BY cis women involved in sports and trans women involved in sports, with perhaps input from ACTUAL science and medical data.

    Also, this is a forum of the AXP. People come here to discuss the show, and other matters involving atheism. I really don’t appreciate huge threads derailing the whole forum by side topics like veganism, or drug trips, and now, mostly cis males losing their cool about trans women in sport.

  106. Murat says

    @Jeanette
    Sports isn’t limited to high level competitions like the Olympics.
    Even if it were, that had nothing to do with the points made about that particular issue of fairness.
    Non-trans people, particulary cis women, are the exact ones affected by this.
    Being a cis man does not prohibit one from any kind of thought exercise on any issue. Plus, regardless of their gender and sex, many people are professionally or emotionally investing in the successes of athletes. Of course they will all have a say on that. Man sells house to allow wife to quit job and compete professionally as an athlete, wife loses by a thread to a trans athlete, and man just gotta STFU coz he ain’t trans, eh? Inustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, hence, sorry to bother you, but people have all the right to express themselves on issues even if they are not directly involved, which they can be and you may not even know of it.
    Kudos for having gathered all the worst (and even contradicting) arguments you could make in order to silence people.
    Even though sounds kind of deluded to me, @kkehno is way more consistent and careful than that in related posts.

  107. says

    @Jeanette
    I noticed that too. In an unbiased society one would expect the major players to be having most of the discussion, I’ve been trying to isolate the specifically trans and cis women voices from these threads to focus most of my attention on. But it’s mostly my fellow cis men. I was thinking about participating and now if I do I’m going to consider doing it differently.

    And it’s a very reasonable request to want all discussion about this in one thread. I support this and think everything should be moved to the last post where these issues were relevant to the content of the video.

    @Murat
    Silenced? You got cririsized, and you didn’t even touch the content of the criticism.

    I think you’ve got a hyperbole problem. That and the references to dogmatism and indoctrination suggest this since your religious references aren’t even remotely substantiated and that’s standard language of dismissal in the athest community.

  108. Murat says

    @Brony
    Pay careful attention.
    I didn’t say I was “silenced”. I said she gathered up all the worst arguments in order to silence people. And she indeed stressed her aim as silencing people based on their gender, as seen below:

    It is very strange to me that the loudest voices talking about seems to be cis men. It is like men having huge, endless debates about birth control and abortion. It really is not for you guys to decide.

    If there is a problem with trans women in sports, it is to be dealt with BY cis women involved in sports and trans women involved in sports, with perhaps input from ACTUAL science and medical data.

    Also, this is a forum of the AXP. People come here to discuss the show, and other matters involving atheism. I really don’t appreciate huge threads derailing the whole forum by side topics like veganism, or drug trips, and now, mostly cis males losing their cool about trans women in sport.

    I directly addressed the content of the criticism.

  109. starfleetdude says

    #116,

    FYI, there have been natal women athletes speaking out about trans-gender women competing in both professional and amateur sport, so it’s not just a topic for armchair discussion. Martina Navratilova, former tennis star, has also been prominent in voicing her concerns about the fairness of trans-women competing in sport. As for the subject being discussed here, it’s AXP’s call to make of course. As long as people are being sincere and willing to listen, it seems reasonable to let the discussion play out.

  110. says

    @Brony
    Oh really?

    So why are you, I’m sorry, you and others still able to type? Yes you look very silenced by the point about this being an issue to be decided by by cis women and trans women. And the fact that that the useful solutions are to be chosen by cis women and trans women.

    You mentioned nothing about the fact that cis men are dominating this topic except to shame the idea that it’s not our business. Our perspectives just don’t matter much and your sensitivity doesn’t change that.

    You asserted they gathered up the worst arguments too. Not very impressive. I haven’t found you to be very useful in here so far and it would be better if cis women and trans women were the ones leading this.

  111. says

    And all of this still has to deal with the fact that absent real established patterns of superior performance at a group level I’m seeing a bunch of people of many kinds acting upset at the POSSIBILITY of trans woman having an unfair advantage. Not real and confirmed, just possible. That looks like prejudice and discrimination to me.

    We get upset when theists have vague bad feelings about atheists and chatter “what ifs” in hoards. That’s what this looks like to me. The athest community is as bigoted as any.

    The bathroom fear has evolved into v2.0

  112. Murat says

    It doesn’t surprise me at all that a person who is so far from getting the points can also be clumsy enough to address his reply to his very own self. That’s a first on this blog. And no, I don’t think “paying attention” has anything to do with gender or sex. It’s just a matter of something else.

  113. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @kkehno #114:

    John made a post earlier stating that he will still be moderating till the aca board decides that he should not anymore.

    Do you remember where that was?

  114. kkehno says

    #124

    Actually it seems i misunderstood. I was thinking back to post where John announced leaving but id actually stated his parting for good. Sorry!

    #117

    “there would never be 100% satisfaction for anyone was that no one will ever fit their desired identities both into their skin and into society in a seamless, perfect way”

    Transpeople know this and are not looking to achieve anything like that. Just the possibility to deal with the GD as best is possible.

    “Given that you accept there may be unfairness (against others) when trans women compete with cis women, you already have the understanding that bigotry might not be the keyword for every aspect of a particular identity and its required struggles”

    Sure, there probably is some level where it is really about leveling the field and making sure it stays fair. That fact wont change that there is also a lot of bigotry going on as people dishonestly represent the case and make a huge problem out of things that are not. I kinda have to deal with these claims case by case and if they end up jumping to bigotry out of ignorance or malice, i should take note.

  115. paxoll says

    The difference between male and female performance for virtually all sports that are divided by sex is well established, and no one even tries to pretend this is not true. It is not the “POSSIBILITY” of a male with a performance handicap having an unfair advantage against females that needs to be “confirmed”. It is the POSSIBILITY that there is NO advantage that has to be confirmed. When the argument is framed correctly it is much easier to evaluate.

    If your argument is that the other side has no right to an opinion on the matter for any reason, then you forfeit. Sports is a 100 billion dollar industry, and the vast majority of that comes from men. The fairness of competition in sports is largely driven by the desire of the spectators and fans wanting an equality of performance that makes the outcome unknowable, otherwise we would have absolutely no divisions in sports and we would see males dominating all top performances. The people with the least valid reason to contribute to the conversation is people who don’t like and care about sports. Matt has admitted as much and that makes him one of the most honest contributors by not contributing.

  116. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Welcome Brony. I don’t see you much around these parts. I wish you luck on your endeavor here, as well as kkehno.

  117. jabbly says

    @Robink #100

    Well I did point in the direction on an older thread but that didn’t seem to quite work. Oh well, now about the Biblical slavery. What’s that all about.

  118. ianbraisby says

    #128
    I guess we should have our own debate about last week’s show as we seem to be in the minority that actually wants to talk about it rather than the trans/sport issue (again).
    I was very surprised to hear several calls in succession that went down the slavery route. For me, it is one of the least defensible of the many bad things in the bible and, if I were a Christian apologist, would be the topic I would most want to steer the conversation away from. It is really a trap for them – either they have to try and justify slavery (indentured servitude, different culture and all the other spurious arguments we’ve heard so many times), admit god condoned something immoral or admit the bible is not perfect. As they won’t countenance the latter two options, they usually end up trying their luck with justification. I can totally understand why Matt was so mad but also why he kept saying it breaks his heart – because I know exactly what he means. Hearing what are probably decent and sincere people so indoctrinated that they perform these mental acrobatics is really tough. Also thinking that Christian friends of mine might even try to do the same if pressed is hard to get my head around. Those are the times I really hate what religion does to people and it’s why I don’t accept the “if it gives people comfort what’s the harm?” argument that you often hear.
    It’s with such impassioned and where necessary harsh responses that I think AXP really does good service in terms of the atheist/theist discourse. Highlighting the irrationalilty and untenable nature of these justifications for immoral teachings is what could set some theist listeners to at least start investigating and questioning. Certainly I prefer when the show addresses issues like this, rather than semantic debates like how we define “nothing” (entertaining as they sometimes are, especially when Tracie was involved).
    Maybe Matt has made a conscious effort to steer the show back towards its roots of discussing what people believe and why, and countering fallacies and poor apologetics, after the recent uproar over social justice issues, maybe it’s just the way the calls have fallen, but I welcome the show being on the path it trod last Sunday.

  119. Murat says

    @ianbraisby
    I don’t recall if any hosts ever did, but a good question to ask apologists of slavery would be a provocatively direct one:
    Do you believe that the Confederate States were more in line with God’s word than the Union States were, back in the days of US Civil War? If not, what particular pillar of the Confederate States doctrine did not match the apologetics you are currently using? Even if you were not a slavemaster, nor a racist or something, and if you were from a border state or a territory (hence, neutral by birth), would you maybe feel like joining them based on the notion that they represented better your beliefs?

  120. jabbly says

    @ianbraisby

    I’d assume that the reason people try and defend it is as it’s pretty indefensible it also makes it a good target to attack.

    As for the general vibe, seeing someone flounder about while they have a new one ripped for them certainly makes good entertainment but I’m not sure if it’s overly productive. Saying that with a lot of online debate the person you’re ‘debating’ with is not the one you’re try to convince.

  121. says

    Murat @

    “Plus, regardless of their gender and sex, many people are professionally or emotionally investing in the successes of athletes. Of course they will all have a say on that. Man sells house to allow wife to quit job and compete professionally as an athlete, wife loses by a thread to a trans athlete, and man just gotta STFU coz he ain’t trans, eh?”

    So…..you raise professional/emotional investment then turn to the most strained example possible.

    One: it must be proven that the vast hordes of trans women competing in sports are having an actual measurable effect. Otherwise it is just as much fear-mongering and trans/homosexual bigotry as the “fear” that men will pretend to be trans women so they can use women’s restrooms.

    Just because someone may have an emotional investment in a sport does not give them ownership of the sport, the athletes, and who gets to play.

    What I am seeing here is a massive feeling of privilege that the world must run to your likes and dislikes, and bigotries.

    Two: To reply to your example If a “man sells house”. Whose house? His, hers, or was it jointly owned? Then what should the man do if his wife loses? He should support HER in whatever response she chooses to make, be it challenging the result or accepting her loss.

    “man just gotta STFU coz he ain’t trans, eh?”

    No, he should shut up because he is not a woman, cis or trans. As the old saying goes, he doesn’t have a dog in that fight.

    To give another example. White people in the US don’t get to tell black people what effects them, what they feel, and what issues they want to deal with. White people can support black people and be allies, but they don’t get to call the shots.

  122. Murat says

    @Jeanette
    It’s ridiculous that, while talking about bigotry, you are constructing a world in which people can be denied to think and speak of matters because of their genders. The man in the example has a houseful of dogs in the fight. And they’re all loose coz the house is sold. What part of this can you not get? You may be prefering to build solidarity only with people of your gender and ideology, but a vast majority of people tend to live as part of a diverse society, meaning, they form bonds with people of other genders, ethnicities, sexes, interests, professions, ideologies, etc. One of the most ancient of such bonds is the one that comes with marriage. And here, you are blatantly claiming that a man should not have a say on a matter affecting his spouse. Considering the topic to be about inclusion, this particular approach is the most absurd, most self-contradicting, worst-thought one you could put forward. What trans women need to be fairly included into is society altogether and on all levels, and not an air-tight set of “women” that you imagine to exist just by themselves, as a closed group. What’s next? Will you ban men entry to women’s competitions? Why would they even occupy the spectators’ seats for events on the fairness of which they would have no say? In the end, it’s “women” that are racing, what do men have anything to do with it, right? It’s painfully ridiculous to see that, under the misguidance of some poorly constructed agenda, one can try to advocate the Iranian Islamic Revolution unknowingly, and even go further as to separate validity of approaches on a topic in the light of what gender the commentator is. Before taking a position on how best trans people’s inclusion to society should work, I suggest you check whether your own thought process is bigoted or inclusive. The world looks like this when people are manipulated into showing interest only in things that are registered to relate to their gender:

  123. jabbly says

    @Jeanette

    Thank you, it’s a bit of a thread to wade through but you will see different perspectives on this issue.

  124. t90bb says

    absolutely one of the best videos on discussions with fundies about slavery. They dodge and dance…..

  125. says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal
    Thank you. I’ve seen you around due to lurking. I haven’t been many places due to severe burnout and am now getting more functional. I’ll be in the 23-22 thread when I decide how I want to approach this.

    @Jeanette
    Thank you.

  126. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says
    I’m not as bad as I appear, I swear! Lol. Or maybe I am. I try though.

  127. nude0007 says

    I get SO TIRED of those who try to claim that the slavery detailed in the bible is not from their god but from the prevalent attitudes of the times. Exodus 20:21 is where all of the slavery discourse STARTS. That is where Moses is talking to GOD in front of all his people and GOD is telling him a lot of rules to abide by. this is CONTINUED into the next chapter which holds the slavery rules. GOD is SPEAKING. Those are HIS RULES!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *