We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Wanjiru Njoya on the feminist double standard
“The feminist double standard was born. Women could invade men’s spaces, but men could not do the reverse. Girls could play for the boys’ high school soccer team if they were good enough, but boys could not play on the girls.’”
Wanjiru Njoya is correct, and the point is general. Defend the rights of others as you would defend your own rights. Because you are defending your own rights.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Except now you can say you’re a girl and you can play on the girls’ team and break records.
I think that the point Ms Njoya is making is that if feminists had not spent decades insisting that male-only spaces and activities could not be permitted, the current situation, in which female-only spaces and activities are being squeezed out, would never have arisen.
Long ago feminism as a broad movement crossed over from rightfully demanding that women should no longer be second class citizens to demanding that, for instance, private gentlemen’s clubs must admit women.
Once the mistaken principle that even private groups had no right to exclude on grounds of sex was established, it was only a matter of time before it was applied to women’s groups, too.
“Long ago feminism as a broad movement crossed over from rightfully demanding that women should no longer be second class citizens to demanding that, for instance, private gentlemen’s clubs must admit women.
Once the mistaken principle that even private groups had no right to exclude on grounds of sex was established, it was only a matter of time before it was applied to women’s groups, too.”
Or alternatively the logical conclusion of the feminist mantra ‘men and women are equal and interchangeable’ was that dividing sports into men’s and women’s categories was contrary to that idea, and all sports should have only one category of competition open to everyone regardless what they have between their legs. Its was the retention of ‘women’s sports’ despite equality demanding their abolition (because it suited women to have positive discrimination in that area) that has created the possibility that a transwoman could demand the same special treatment given to female athletes and sportswomen.
There seems to be a dreadful inconsistency inherent to Natalie’s post: If it is “rightful” to ban male-only clubs, then how is it at all defensible to demand male/female segregation elsewhere? Does the one not imply that the precedent should be established everywhere, at all times?
I think that the real target of “rightfulness” should have been the conduct of public government business within those clubs excluding women. The precedent ought to have been established that that was what was wrong, not male or female privacy. The triumphant women accomplishing that “feat” seem not to have considered that their own spaces would likewise be forfeit… Which is what Natalie is pointing out in part of her post. So… Which is it? Are violations of male space the only ones that are “rightful”?
I’m not sure about some of the reasoning here. Surely it is ridiculous, and rather dense, to claim that feminists have double standards because they think it’s all right for women to compete in sports with men but not vice versa. The reason there are women only sports is that allowing men to compete would either be downright dangerous or make it impossible for biological women to win. In other words the reasons are related to safety and having a level field of play; fundamentally they are unrelated to the concept of rights.
Also the woke claim isn’t so much that biological men should be able to compete in women’s sports as that those who are women by virtue of their belief that they are women should be able to do so. So in the view of the woke, if nobody else, the sports remain sexually segregated.
In short , to say I’m unimpressed by Ms Njoya’s reasoning would be to but it mildly.
The point the post is making is that feminists started to use Marxist (specifically Frankfurt School “Critical Theory” Marxist) doctrines – and now these seem doctrines are being used by “Trans Activists” against women.
Women will only win against the “Trans activists” if feminists stop using Marxist “oppressor and oppressed” doctrines themselves.
Equal rights for all must mean that – not quotas for women (or anyone else), or claims of a “pay gap” when it turns out different jobs are being (absurdly) compared as if they should have equal pay, and on and on.
The same “arguments” feminists used against men, are being used by the Trans Activists against women.
If you read the rules of most “men’s” sports carefully, you will discover that they aren’t men’s sports. They are just sports. Only women’s sports tend to specify as a matter of rule that only women are allowed.
So, for example, despite appearances to the contrary, there is no men’s snooker. There is a women’s snooker league, and a snooker league which doesn’t discriminate based on sex. No men’s chess either, although it’s true there used to be.
So too, AFAIK, with american football and baseball. Also golf; the PGA is not a men’s tour, but the LPGA is in fact a women’s tour.
I don’t think this is true for tennis, but I am not sure why it isn’t. Removing rules forbidding women from competing against men wouldn’t change a single thing in the men’s sport. Not a single woman would appear in the top 200.
Ferox said:
This is where you’re in error. It most certainly would change the rules in sports in exactly the same way that they changed the rules of military service. Standards too high? Make things easier for the girls… They’d lower the basketball hoops, and turn tackle football or rugby into the flag versions, ‘cos it wouldn’t be “fair” to the girls who wanted to play.
That’s the mentality. The reality that men and women are different, that we’re a sexually dimorphic species? That escapes these dumbasses. Trust me on this… Standards would slip, changes would be made, and whatever sport let women in? Wouldn’t be the same in very short order.
This is simply a rather graphic example of the feminazi/marxist/critical whatever/social/justice/in vogue mental affliction etc etc meeting real world reality.
We’ve ALL seen it in one form or another. Plug doors blow out of aircraft in flight. But what the hell, I’m sure the stale, pale and male can be blamed so the joyous path to societal collapse is not in danger.
This is a bit different though as the pale, male and stale cannot be so readily.
I’m an ally though.
Seems like a Randian point here – it’s good to be “the public”, “the victims”, until you find that someone else has knocked you down a spot and now they’re more the victims, more “the public”, than you are. Feminists have now found that they are the oppressors of a new set of victims.
It’s a zero-sum game, the way the manipulators frame it. I don’t know why they didn’t just say “OK, boys and girls are different, but we have this newly recognized thing, so we’re going to establish a third category for competition… Transsexual.”
Problem solved. Let them compete among their own kind, who have similar biological and genetic features.
Instead, they behave in diametric opposition to their own propaganda, and insist that there must be a binary male/female categorization, and that the trans may just pick whichever they like. The criteria of which, from where I sit, seems to mostly consist of “Where am I most likely to win…?”
Girls are not boys; boys are not girls. Transsexuals are neither, being advantaged athletically if they are male-to-female. I’m unaware of any cases where a female-to-male athlete has demanded entry into a traditionally male sport like boxing or pro football, but here we are. Ah, well… The modern age is sadly bereft of any common sense.
The simplest thing is to make everything like boxing, and just have a plain simple weight category, regardless of what’s between your legs, and you compete within the category. Something like: what weight can you hold at arm’s length for 60 seconds.
I think this matter is a direct result of governments and the judiciary poking their noses in things that are none of their business.
If women want a women only team, or trannies want a tranny team, or men want a men only team, then nothing should be done to prevent them establishing one.
Same for social clubs, swimming clubs, and any other type of venture.
The commies need to learn how to stop clamouring to change human nature.
How about them using their diversity obsession to allow diversity of choice of who we associate with.
’ The commies need to learn how to stop clamouring to change human nature.’
They can’t, JiC, because only by changing human nature can communism ever work.
— Francis Parker Yockey
Which has opened the way for second class men, those ‘fourth tier’ athletes, for example, to compete in female sports, from there it’s no stretch to claim access to women’s changing rooms.
The society that tolerates this sort of thing, is doomed.
It wasn’t.
Women do not seem to be content to enter male-only clubs (or professions, or barrack-rooms) but they want to change them, feminize them beyond recognition and regardless of any effect on efficiency or effectiveness.
It is very difficult to combat Marxist attacks, such as “Third Wave Feminism”, “Critical Race Theory”, or “Gender Theory”, if people are not willing to say they are Marxist (specifically Frankfurt School “Critical Theory” Marxist) attacks.
As long as most people are scared of using the “M word”, Marxist, the Critical Theory Marxists will continue to win – and the Western world will be destroyed.
One has nothing to do with the other. The rule was, and remains, that women-only spaces are always okay, but men-only spaces are never okay. The claim “transwomen are women” is independent of that.
Argh!!! This is so infuriating!
The reality that men and women are different, that we’re a sexually dimorphic species? That escapes these dumbasses.
No, it doesn’t.
The simplest thing is to make everything like boxing, and just have a plain simple weight category, regardless of what’s between your legs, and you compete within the category.
and
“OK, boys and girls are different, but we have this newly recognized thing, so we’re going to establish a third category for competition… Transsexual.” Problem solved.
——-
No, it isn’t. I don’t know why, on this site of all places, it still needs to be said that THE ISSUE IS NOT THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS THE REVOLUTION.
Sports is not a problem that has to be solved. It is an institution that has to be protected. Sports has been a key element of Western civilization since the time of Ancient Greece, so the left is out to destroy it. Trying to meet them halfway won’t solve the problem, because the problem doesn’t exist. It will, however, bring us halfway to our own destruction. SO STOP DOING IT!
And speaking of destruction, it’s what I want to do to this piece-of-shit iPad that both refuses to highlight text in a text box and edits the html tags I type in by hand, changing them to gibberish that this site understandably doesn’t recognize. Why can’t anybody just let me do what I want to do without interfering?
George m weinberg is entirely right. The claim that transwomen are women is completely distinct from the debate about male and female only spaces. We live in a rights obsessed age and tend to pay them undue attention in circumstances where they should not be the decisive factor. If you debate with trans activists through the prism of rights alone you have one hand tied behind your back. What sporting authorities should have done is to tell the activists that any rights they believe they have are trumped by the need to keep female sport safe and fair.
Hoist by their own petard.
For years femenists encouraged females to engage with the patriarchy and become more independent, a worthy cause, but what followed was a mass gaslighting of males that older successful women were more desirable than younger ones.
Biologically, males seek out females that can provide the most healthy offspring, the fact that a female is rich or famous does not influence male preference, but feminists (especially the older successful ones) tried to change all that.
Having embarked on a tirade of toxic masculinity, they now find themselves on the receiving end of the same illogical arguments.
Yeah. it sucks doesn’t it?
Siiiiigh
Could the rest of you hair-splitting libertarian types just go read mkent’s post a few times, until it sinks in?
This is not about you being clever enough to figure anything out.
It’s about not engaging or legitimizing the Marxist tar baby.
You can’t be serious. Women in men’s sports are at a serious disadvantage. Men who can’t compete with other men wipe the floor with women in women’s sports. You spout your ideological nonsense all you want but the two are not comparable. In most sports women may as well stay home if men are competing.