bobalob

Welcome news, but unfortunate that the WI had to be compelled by the threat of legal action to follow the law and do the right thing.

The reason that this male sexual predator was allowed to use the female changing room and showers is because he claimed to have a female gender identity.

This illustrates the safeguarding risk in allowing males to use female spaces on the basis of simply saying that they identify as female. It ends up with situations like this: a registered sex offender pleasuring his erect penis in a shower area that young girls are using, and a reluctance of the authorities to stop him and file charges because they're in the thrall of policy that deems self-declared gender identity to be unquestionable.

> are you suggesting that if you can find one male sexual predator, it justifies equating all males with predators

For the purposes of safeguarding, yes. This is much of the reason why we have female-only spaces in the first place, as a preventative against male predation.

Not all males are predatory, but one can be quite sure that the subset of males who disregard and ignore women's and girls' boundaries are. Including the sex offender being discussed in that Twitter conversation. And any other male who demands access to female spaces.

Unless you're arguing for the abolishment of all single-sex spaces, which you don't seem to be, I don't see how your analogy works.

The reasons that women and girls are provisioned with female-only spaces are entirely different from the reasons behind the racist exclusion and segregation of black people in a white oppressor society.

It seems that you made this analogy without really thinking about it in any depth.

> 2. A group of people demanding certain specific and new legal rights with respect to how they are different

> (yeah, those n***s want to eat in our restaurants and swim in our public pools, have decent schools and even be allowed to buy houses near us! Why should they get special rights like that?)

Are you sure this analogy holds up when you're comparing it to males demanding access to female-only spaces?

Seems to be very different by every relevant metric.

> People don't just "choose" to be transgender.

You may be surprised. Have you heard about "transmaxxing"? This involves men deliberately transitioning, with the end goal of passing themselves off as women, because they feel it's better than inceldom.

No problem. Regarding Kirk's tweet, at that point (early August) it was already well established that the IBA had disqualified Khelif (and another boxer, Lin) from their women's tournaments for ineligibility due to failing a sex test. They hadn't released specifics due to medical confidentiality but it wasn't a rumour and even though Khelif appears male it wasn't about looks.

> What brings us to the main point the right always doesn't get: What is a woman? If body and mind have the same gender it's easy but what if body and mind have a different gender? Seems to me the concept that the mind doesn't need to align with the body seems impossible to them.

It's not just the right who are skeptical of this idea. Like what does "body and mind have a different gender" even mean when you look at the detail of it?

> And that is only based on rumors and Imane Khelif's looks.

This is inaccurate. A lab report showing that Khelif has an XY karotype, and extracts from Khelif's medical file describing a male-only disorder of sex development (5-ARD), were leaked to journalists.

Kirk talked about this from a conservative perspective but it's more a women's rights and competitive fairness issue than anything else.

> intersex people disagree

Not really. Each of these conditions can be understood and described in terms of male and/or female sex development. The "spectrum" rhetoric obfuscates detail.

> the traits that society-at-large attributes to the sexes

This is just sexist stereotyping though. Doesn't mean you're neither woman nor man if you don't adhere to these stereotypes. That's absurd.

The problem with "non-binary" is that it is inherently sexist in the worldview it describes.

Sex is neither a spectrum nor an identity.

> as she would not have faced sexism while living as a man

The irony here is that concepts like "living as a man" and "living as a woman" are inherently sexist.

Going through normal pubertal development is in no way whatsoever a process of being "irreversibly mutilated". What a daft claim.