Understand the use of that label is very deliberate and the intent is to silence areas of discussion and debate when the person feels they cannot properly address them or counter those arguments.

It is also intended to push other people to 'sides' so they will stay silent on a 'good or reasonable point' made by the person being labeled transphobic lest they get attacked too. Better to stay silent than to be labeled.

And it is effective.



This above is my entire view on this topic. It is NOT yet settled and we must continue to explore COMPROMISE ways to better deal with some of the very real issues and challenges.

My not treating this issue like it was settled science and there was only one correct view WAS what got me attacked as transphobic, etc at the very start of this issue

If you believe this area is EVOLVING as i have always maintained then you have to be open to discussions with points you don't agree with. Discussion does not mean 'only bring up things I agree with'.


^^^ LOL. Case in point.

This is such a bad take but has immediately been adopted as the template 'spin' answer we are now seeing forwarded.

No Hubbard not medaling at age 43 as person who was decent but not top tier elite in her years competing in mens powerlifting over 2 decades prior and forced to retire due to mounting injuries and age and irrelevance is IN NO WAY proof that this is "not much to worry about" and quite the opposite it is ABSOLUTE PROOF that this is something absolutely to worry about.

It shows that a transwoman, even after complete irrelevance in men's sport and advanced age can not only make the Olympics and knock out an absolute elite cis female who has trained most of her life for this and is in her prime, denying her that reward of her life's work, but it speaks to how if a person like Hubbard (similarly skilled male) but much younger transitions, they will crush the woman's sport and put records out of reach, potentially for decades.

Had Laurel transitioned in her male prime years, at age 20 she would have set records far out of reach for all cis females that only in this last couple years (20 years later) would have been broken by one single elite Chinese cis female.

To be clear, no one has ever suggested every transfemale athlete will automatically be elite level despite their age, injuries or prior athletic prowess. What is being said is that it is such an advantage that you can see transwomen compete against CIS Women and win when they were completely irrelevant in competition against men, before they transitioned.

The easy extrapolation from that is to understand what happens when a transwomen transitions at a point where she was still relevant in men's sport. No need to even suggest 'elite', just relevant as we all know that top 15 year olds boys can generally beat the most elite women's athletes, in most sports, long before the boys enter their athletic primes as men.

So a slightly provocative but well intentioned question, when you use the feminine pronoun referring to when she transitioned is that because you now accept the arguments I tried to put to you about pronouns or is that a slip because actually it's quite intuitive to refer to her past that way?

The obvious point is that had she transitioned earlier she wouldn't have lifted the same weights. A good professional man being equivalent to an elite woman is exactly what I expect to see when we look at performance differences, so Laurel's performance doesn't actually tell us much in isolation. Her age may be an anomaly, I don't know how much, a quick google said 2% of weightlifters fell in the 32-39 bracket so 43 is presumably rare but not outside of possible. Similar to how there's a table tennis player who's 58 while the average age in that sport is early 20's.

Frankly it's absurd to call a single instance "ABSOLUTE PROOF" (complete with capitalisation for emphasis).

The thing I find amusing is simply that there has been all this fuss made about the unfairness of an athlete who didn't complete a lift. It's damn impressive, and perhaps even anomalous, that she qualified but given that all Olympians are definitionally outliers it's not a huge concern to me to find one. I mean, Foreman had his last fight at 48 and that's crazy but sport is all about finding those outliers.

If you think I'm pointing out that Laurel bombed out the competition as some kind of definitive sign that you were wrong, I'm not. What I'm doing is having a bit of schadenfreude that all the fuss about this specific individual turned out to be a giant nothing. Feel free to continue your case about the broader trans issue, but I'm going to continue to laugh at this particular storm in a teacup.

This is an accurate take and also look how many 42 year old biological woman even compete at this level. NONE

It's initialy effective.

But it's a classic mistake to think that somethign that works brilliantly when unexpected wont become a liability as people adjust. There's also the addiction quality of it to where the rush from the occasional hits keeps them coming back.

The tragedy is that it quickly becomes the worst elements who benefit most from the abandonment of reason and the divisiveness. It's up to the rest of us to try to keep to reason as in the end that's all we have.

I'd still argue with you that being PC is incredibly important. Real harm is done to vulnerable groups so a bit of care with language is not much to ask.

VICTORY IN EUROPE!!!

They said I was being an idiot for continuing a 5 week old argument about whether to use male or female pronouns to refer to her past as a man. But I believed in Cuepee. I believed he could learn and grow. Or, at least, he would forget his own positions and **** up as it is so much more natural to use the standard convention. One or the other. Either way, I'm so proud.

Is it really? Didn't you previously suggest that 14 year old trans girls shouldn't be allowed to play on the school girls soccer team? The sense I had was you were being utterly inflexible and utterly unwilling to compromise because if these young trans girls could play with their female friends in school, then integrity in sport would be "destroyed".

Regarding this and the surrounding discussion of calling ideas or people "transphobia", I generally, although not always, shy away from calling the specific people I'm arguing with transphobic. I will use the term for sort of externalities to the conversation like "transphobic GOP bills to ban children from playing sports with each other" or whatever. However, I should be clear that I do this largely for helping to advance a substantive conversation on the issues. This is because when people do call things transphobic, I don't think it "silences" the conversation exactly (and that certainly isn't the goal - most of the above take is bad) but it does commonly result in people pivoting to these types of takes and now the conversation isn't about how misguided the original idea was, but whether it is fair to call it "transphobic".

So I've tended to avoid it.

But since it's been brought up let me be clear: Many of the arguments brought up ITT are deeply, deeply transphobic.

Almost. This is one of those situation were it is hard to guess ahead of time, but you can read the articles about them (sorry, I didn't link at the time) to see how they prefer to be referred to. In their case, they ask to be referred to using "them/they" pronouns, which mean your posts is wrong in the two bolded spots.

(edit: For clarity since it has been brought up, this is the type of post I find ignorant but not at all transphobic. If someone refused to adopt their pronouns after being informed about it, then I would find it transphobic)

Pre-emptying Bobo and others blaming me for this issue never dying, and a complete inability to just agree to disagree and move on.

You have already admitted that if Laurel (Lesbian, anyone) corrected you, you would apologize. The Lesbian example ('he') makes it clear that conformity is not a thing.

So while I respect your view and how you would CHOOSE to label Laurel IN ADVANCE OF KNOWING HER VIEW, I absolutely reject you being so sure that you can tell others they are wrong, when you ADMIT you could be the one wrong.

This about ooboo'ing and arrogance.

You are so certain you would CORRECT me for calling the lesbian a 'he' and then you would apologize after you got input. But you don't allow the other person to be wrong and correct themselves after the lesbian (other) tells them. Nope you ASSUME you are right and then correct.


And lets be clear, I am not speaking about Laurel GENERALLY in the past, as I WOULD refer to her as her, for general reference.

I made a very specific statement about 'HER' while referring to her as 'HER" in other regards but very specifically when I was trying to make the point about her accomplishments AT THE TIME as a Cis male I simply said something along the lines of 'when he set records in the men's division at that time', and I stand by that as correct. To say 'when she set records in men's sport' is confusing. my comment was SPECIFIC to that event and that the person competing had to be a cis male at the time to achieve that.

You ASSUME there is some insult in referring to a person in that way in that point in time when in fact Laurel herself might say (as the lesbian did) that I don't conform perfectly to others views. I was very proud of my past accomplishments in that time frame as cis male and THAT IS OK.


I am sure you would agree that would be ok. But at the same time, out of oobooing and arrogance, you cannot help but say 'until then you QP are wrong and must do it MY way', while acknowledging you will correct yourself after.

If I am wrong allow the lesbian ('he') to correct me and I will adjust just as you say you would allow them to correct you, if you were the one wrong, and you would adjust.

uke's is doing the same thing now with me over the Indian Variant or Delta variant. I play tennis with a Indian guy weekly and he refers to it as the Indian variant so who is uke offended on behalf of? Is it wrong to call it the Indian or is he just trying to force his opinion and view of what is appropriate on to others?

You should expect push back from others when you act is you are the sacred holder of the sole correct opinion, when you acknowledge you do not even know if you are correct until you hear from the individual.

Agree 100% with the above.

I would argue that the people in Edmonton, trying their best to find accommodation that actually works and protects the trans and POC growing communities from the broader far more bigoted larger populace are the ones who are the most accommodating. They see the big picture.

The people, like those in this thread who instantly try and demonize any such attempts to compromise as wrong are either short sighted or, more likely, just far more vested in the fight and wanting the fight.

It's not personal so the personal view of anyone doesn't carry much weight.

The use of delta/etc is a great example of PC in action. Doesn't require any of the silly name calling thingy, we do it and as it becomes dominate the objections dissipate. But if we make it a fight then more will use the old name because that's how most people respond to fights.

Eventually people will struggle to remember which variant used to be named after which place. Some wont even remember that it was.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I've never brought up "offence" once in this thread either on my behalf or that of others. Not once.

This is you going off on one about offence again instead of just answering a question that I tried to caveat I knew would be provocative but meant well. I genuinely wanted to know if you were backing down on the pronoun issue because then I won't keep pressing you to actually discuss the substance of that disagreement.

All your rant amounts to is "there could be exceptions to the norm you've laid out". Which is something that I'm fine with. I am more than willing to go with whatever pronouns someone prefers but there's a norm and I've argued for why I think that norm is the case.

I'll ask you very pointedly, what do you want to do - do you want to rant about "oobooing" or do you actually ever want to discuss the substance of the disagreement? If it's the former, you don't really want to discuss the view. You just want to moralise and condescend to us and the irony of your posts is palpable. If it's the latter then you've done a fantastic job of making sure never to address it.

Huh? Literally all I did was inform you - since you appeared to be ignorant - that the convention has recently shifted from "Indian variant" to "Delta variant". How on earth did you get something about anyone being offended?

Classic oconing (offending Cuepee over nothing).

You can take your victory lap on the strawman you have crafted as you try desperately to change the original issue to a winnable one for you but that was never my issue.

I am absolutely fine generally to referring to anyone's past with their current pronoun and adjusting if they ask.

This was a very specific instance. I commented on a point in time and have no issue speaking about 'the period when he set records decades ago when he competed as a cis male' when I am otherwise referencing her, as a her in all other contexts.

Bruce Jenner did not win medals as the transwoman she is today. A woman did not compete against men in that sport and re-write all those records as 'her' or even 'Kaitlyn' as competing and to not refer to that point in time as 'Bruce' and 'him' competing is a form of revisionist history.

it is not an insult to capture the past accurately even if someone has changed today.

"Ignorant" of what?

Who are you offended on behalf of that you use the word "ignorant"? My Indian tennis friend??

What convention are you using that suggests is it wrong or ignorant to refer to it still as the Indian Variant which was common not that long ago?

What was the woke deadline for everyone to shift or be labeled "ignorant"??


I fully understand why with Trump and the "Chinese" Virus people were ooboo'ing as Trump was trying to be offensive and to use it deliberately demonize and politicize but outside Trump there has NEVER been any convention historically suggesting that identifying things by the region of outbreak. Quite the opposite, that was the more the norm than not.

So are we ooboo'ing for every future name from now on just because of Trump?

Nuff said.

And for many on the PC side that is the entire point.

So sad. I had really, really hoped that you had learned and grown. Finally, after 5 weeks, you correctly used the female pronoun to refer to her past. But nope, one post later and you are right back violating the convention and trying to furiously justify it with some nonsense not even worth quoting.

Let me ask you this: do you think the above two sentences are equally good? Or is one more standard than the other?

You seemed ignorant of the fact that the convention has changed from talking about the "Indian Variant" to the "Delta Variant". Since you kept using the former, I presumed you were ignorant that there had been this change of convention. If you were not ignorant, why were you using the old convention and not the new one?

And again, nobody said a single word about being offended. You made that up. Just as you do every time you bring up being offended. I get it, the cool guy during your glory days on Rotten Tomatoes made up the acronym ooboo and you just want to be able to relieve that in every conversation, but it just doesn't fit in here, sorry.

no all my rant amounts to is that the bar for CORRECTING others and telling them they are wrong is much higher than the one for making your own choice.

If you hear me refer to the lesbian as 'he' and you think convention is it should be 'she' and that is what you choose to use then great. You are making a BET on what will likely be correct the majority of the time.

But when we do not know, the lack of hubris to tell someone else they are wrong and to scold and correct them is over the top.

Let the person be wrong and get corrected and adjust (just as you admit you would).

To start out accusing and so certain the other is wrong when you admit you might be (the odds being in your favour is not enough) wrong is not something you should expect to be taken well.

I think the onus on the accuser ('you are wrong') becomes absolute at that point. You better have the factual goods to prove they are wrong or just govern yourself to your view and let them do the same.

Cuepee, remember when you repeatedly called me a dishonest liar? And then I explained the clear and simple misunderstanding that led to these claims by you? And then you utterly refused to ever address it afterwards?

Where was all this bit about the onus being on the accuser and you better have the factual goods to prove it etc etc etc then?

Should be but still they persist. Doesn't matter how much havoc divisiveness is reaping on the world.

I dont think that's true at all. The silly name callers are rarely supporters of PC.

PC is a massive group. Those who want a fight are noisy and dangerous but they are a tiny group.

Hypothetical,


Me to Person 1 : With regards to your questions about Kaitlyn Jenner and the records under Bruce Jenner that he set at that point in time, i think it is fair to say at that time he was a top athlete in men's sport.


I stand by that type of point of time descriptor of such a very specific thing (women are not setting records in men sport so using she for that point in time reference is historically inaccurate) as being correct.

Not only that we do not know how Kaitlyn would refer to that period in time. She might take great pride in her accomplishments then as a cis male and want them to remain referred to that way.

For you to assume how you would address for yourself is fine. You are beyond arrogant if you are ooboo'ing for Kaitlyn without knowing (and admit you would apologize and correct yourself after) and to go even further to tell someone they are wrong, before knowing is over the top.

uke I called you that when you did that.

But please dredge up another past argument and quotes so Bobo can chastise me for it, as you guys simply will not accept I am not going to agree with you on these various points and thus you keep using any excuse to recycle and litigate them.

Lets do this. Bring it back up! I got nothing but time.