101010.pl is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
101010.pl czyli najstarszy polski serwer Mastodon. Posiadamy wpisy do 2048 znaków.

Server stats:

555
active users

@rysiek @muiren A simple Google search on #Zambia 🇿🇲 by J.K. Rowling would have easily dispelled such accusations. Zambia 🇿🇲 imprisons #LGBT people, so they obviously would not allow a Transgender player to represent them on the football ⚽️ field.

Some people are “too smart” for their own good.

@darnell @muiren it was exactly the same with Imane Khelif. She is Algerian, represented Algeria, and Algeria also is LGBT-hostile.

@rysiek
You are very misinformed on the nature of this controversy. It has nothing to do with being transgender. Please educate yourself before making harsh judgements.

@rcz not sure why you removed @darnell and @muiren from your reply.

But please, do educate me about this controversy? What is it *really* about, in your view?

@rysiek

I try to engage in a respectful discussion of a complex subject, so I will choose to take your request at face value, ignoring the obvious, while unwarranted, sarcastic undertone.

The controversy is about DSDs.
Particularly, about 5-alpha-reductase defficiency — a condition affecting male sex development in a way which leads to new-born boys being mistaken for girls, because of undeveloped extenal genitalia.

There is no suggestion of anyone being transgender in any of these cases, so the whole discussion of countries being LGBT-hostile is entirely irrelevant.

@darnell @muiren

@rcz regarding the tone, I think that's only fair, I did the same with your patronizing tone after all.

Before we jump in, I asked the other two people mentioned earlier if they want to continue being mentioned, I'll re-add them if they confirm. Should have asked first, to be fair.

@rcz and let's do one more thing and remove the specific person from this, as there are going to be a lot of uncomfortable hypotheticals in this thread, I'm sure.

So let' say there is a person called Amal. She has been assigned female at birth, and since then has participated in sports all her life, with considerable success.

When she's twentysomething, suddenly there's a test showing the result you mention.

What gender is she, in your opinion?

@rysiek
There are multiple conflicting definitions of “gender” — I take it here to be a synonym for “sex”, but you're free to specify a different meaning.

If the test shows Amal is a XY person with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, that would mean Amal is male.

@rcz right. You added the chromosome thing, we'll get back to that.

So a person assigned female at birth, participating in sports for years upon years (meaning being close quarters in changing rooms with other women), is in your opinion now considered male.

Should Amal be allowed to participate in sports as a woman?

Should Amal be allowed to participate in sports as a man?

And, how come nobody noticed until now?

/re-adding @darnell after confirming he's okay with that

@rysiek @darnell

I've only added the chromosome thing for clearer context, as, as I said, 5-alpha-reductase deficiency only affects males anyway. But sure, we can get back to that if something isn't clear here.

No, in my opinion Amal should not be allowed to participate in sports as a woman.

Yes, Amal should definitely be allowed to participate in sports as a man.

I don't understand the last question. What has nobody notices until now? Amal has definitely noticed “something is off”. After being mistakenly assigned female at birth, Amal might have not noticed anything until puberty. But then, when menstruation doesn't start, and instead external male genitalia do belatedly appear, Amal definitely noticed that — understandably very embarrassing and confusing — development.

@rcz I also assume Amal should in your opinion start using the mens' room now, as well, right?

Edit: sorry, mistakenly wrote "ladies'" room.

@darnell

@rysiek @darnell

Really, you've decided to pivot to The Bathroom Issue instead of actually engaging with the actual issue we're discussing?

Do you accept that your understanding of this controversy as of two hours ago was wrong on the level of facts, and that you've now learned important additional facts changing this understanding?

Did this realization push you to actually make an effort to reevaluate your opinion?

@rcz but if Amal must switch from participating in female sports to participating in male sports, then it follows Amal must switch from using the ladies' room to using the mens' room?

Is it not the case?

Amal was assigned female at birth, went through her life as a woman, and then at twenty something is informed that she "is a male".

Apart from being "embarrassing and confusing" as you put it, it's a huge practical and personal safety problem for Amal in LBGT-hostile places.

@darnell

@rysiek @darnell

Does it follow? Maybe. It's just a different discussion. We can have that discussion at some point also, bathrooms do have practical and safety-related issues and it's a whole topic. But why do you want to pivot from the topic we're actually discussing?

You asked me a series of questions on this sports issue, but what do you think?

We now know, and Amal knows, that Amal enjoys full sports-related benefit of male development, because this condition doesn't affect it. Amal still wants to take part in a women's kick-boxing competition.

Do you think it's fine?

@rcz @darnell I think it's fine, yes. I think Amal lived her whole life as a woman, and if she considers herself a woman, she is a woman.

I think somehow the "sports-related benefits" are only considered problematic in sports when it just so happens that a discussion of biological sex is involved.

Nobody is banning Phelps from competing with people who do not happen to benefit from similar physical quirks, for example.

@rysiek @rcz @darnell This person just wants to shut people who are not gender conforming out of participation in anything, including public life.

Having factory-original female anatomy, being raised as a woman, being socialized as a woman, and living one’s life as a woman doesn’t matter, if your invisible chromosomes don’t line up. Every tiny, even involuntary and uncontrollable non-conformity is verboten!

@MisuseCase

You're misinformed (or lying). This isn't about “conformity”, and XY people with 5-alpha-reductase defficiency do not have any “female anatomy”.

@rysiek @darnell

@MisuseCase I'd appreciate if we kept it civil in my mentions though. It's not a good look and does not help.

With all due respect to you @rysiek
What @ rcz is doing is not civil.

Stripping away someone's identity using medical language is not civil behavior.

@MisuseCase

@eric I get what you're saying and I agree on a basic level. And I am glad you made that point. That's also one of the reasons why I introduced our hypothetical Amal, instead of discussing the living breathing person affected by this.

That said, I think it still behooves us to stay civil ourselves. Getting into a shouting match is not something I want.

@MisuseCase

@rysiek

Oh!

I'm not going to lie, I am taken aback that you chose not to tag me in a post discussing me personally, even after specifically making a point about how I earlier untagged some people I had never even had any contact with. Why would you do that? This looks like disingenuous engagement on your part, while pretending to have some moral high ground in terms of civility.

I'm very happy, as I think I've shown, to move the discussion to hypothetical people. I'm also doing my best to steer clear of ad hominems, which you are not. But if you have any more requests with regards to my civility, please do not hesitate to make them, I'll do my best to oblige.

In my view, this self-satisfied discussion here, ostensibly about my alleged lack of civility, isn't actually about finding a civil way of having this discussion. It is, instead, about replacing the discussion, in any form, with taking offense.

I have patiently answered your sarcastic questions, and I'm quite convinced you already know that your view at the start of this conversation (that the story is about “attacking a cis female” by “implying she's trans” because “she's too buff”) was substantially wrong.

Instead of acknowledging that (even though you did move the discussion in a different direction, to whether sex categories in sport are needed), what you did is to repeatedly try to smear my position, without slightest justification, just based on what it ”reminds you of”, as equivalent to racism, homophobia, misogyny.

No, you are not staying civil. Not even close.

You're just wrong, and desperate not to acknowledge it.

Thank you for this conversation, anyway.

@eric @MisuseCase@twit.social

@rcz well we don't agree here on most basic things. I still have more questions that I do want to ask.

I did not smear you, I did not use any ad hominems against you personally.

I did mention racism and homophobia explicitly, but only when you had specifically asked me what my position is. I answered your question honestly and without trying to beat around the bush. Should I have not?

I asked you about misogyny. Was that too far for some reason?

@eric

@rcz I did move the conversation towards whether gender based categories in sports are needed, because that is the underlying issue here. I would be happy to continue that conversation, as I believe we are getting close to the end of that tunnel.

The thing about "being buff" came directly from one of the sources I linked to.

Meanwhile you implied a specific medical condition as affecting the player, for which you have not provided any specific source yourself.

Do you have such source?

@eric

@rcz the reason I didn't re-add you was that my previous re-adding in this thread was a mistake. I should not have done that, and I made a note of that in the edited post afterwards.

You will perhaps also note, that in a different branch I reacted to someone name-calling you, asking them to stop.

Anyway, I will gladly reply to your other posts in this thread tomorrow, as today I am working under a short deadline.

If, that is, you're open to continuing this conversation, of course.

@eric

Radek Czajka

@rysiek

I did ask you what your position was, but if I'm asked what my position is on some issue, and I just add without any justification: “and by the way, your position on this issue reminds me of nazism, I don't know, just a thought” — then that wouldn't be explaining my position on the issue, it would obviously just be smearing my opponents moral character. I wouldn't do it.

I'm fine with continuing the conversation, and I'm absolutely fine with a slower pace, and I'll happily answer your specific question, but I do need to have something cleared up first.

In this thread, you agreed with @eric that “what I'm doing is not civil”, and you contrasted it with “staying civil yourselves”. I take issue with that. Specifically, you pointed to ”discussing the living breathing person affected by this” as an example when discussing me allegedly being uncivil. But now you're also specifically asking me to go back to discussing the living breathing players. And you are specifically asking about the facts about these people which do, as we discussed, relate to their identities.

So, can we set this record straight?

Can we actually have a civil discussion — on both sides — about this issue? And can we, after all, have a civil discussion involving facts relating to identities of real people?

@rcz I think we've been having a civil discussion all along.

However, I still I agree with @eric that stripping people of their identity – which is how I perceive insisting that a person who has been a cis woman her whole life now is to be considered "male" – based on a medical test is uncivil.

The only reason I came back to that particular person was because you returned to the "buff" thing about that person, insisting it was substantially wrong. I don't believe it has been shown to be wrong.

@rcz @eric instead of showing it was wrong – and again, I provided a source of where that came from – you provided a chain of assertions related to specific medical condition:
101010.pl/@rcz/113560367925215

The shape of this was: if this case is similar to X case, and X case is similar to Y case, then the situation is so and so.

You yourself recognized that:
"There isn't much information available on Banda."

I don't see how that unsubstantiated chain of assertions shows I was "substantially wrong."

@rcz all that said, I would be more than happy to go back to discussing our hypothetical Amal, about whom we can freely make any assertion we want for the purposes of this conversation.

@eric

@rysiek @eric

Ok. I conclude you do not interpret my position as “insisting that a person who has been a cis woman her whole life now is to be considered male based on a medical test”, because that would make my position in this discussion uncivil in your view, and you say we've been having a civil discussion. I'm not dwelling on that, but thank you agreeing the discussion is civil.

I wasn't saying you are wrong about this specific person's medical state — indeed, I specifically made it clear there isn't much information about that. I said you're presenting a wrong understanding of the controversy. I'll try to clear this up:

You said that Rowling implied the player is trans. This is clearly wrong. Rowling didn't imply the player was trans, and I think that was made clear fairly early on in the discussion. This was substantively wrong, because this initially pushed the discussion in the — as I'm sure you now realize — misguided direction of: “why do these stupid people not realize this person comes from a LGBT-hostile country” to a more productive discussion of DSDs.

To reiterate, this is mainly what I was referring to when talking about being substantively wrong: the discussion was clearly heading in this misguided direction.

Also, you said that “apparently” the criterion for Rowling is being “too buff”. This is clearly wrong. Rowling wasn't commenting on the player being “buff”, she was directly commenting the information about failed sex eligibility rules.

To be clear: I don't think we know what the specific eligibility rules were in this case, and I don't think Rowling knows either. I don't know if you're making the argument that she is out of line raising alarm if she doesn't know that, you didn't say that — but just in case you are, I disagree, and we can also discuss why I think this is justified in the context you correctly identified (previous similar cases).

@rysiek @eric

I don't know if after this clarification your question about sources about specific medical condition still stands — we can still go there, but don't have to if it's irrelevant.