QJ, dont feel the need to respond... I just could not help but to respond:
WILL TRANS WOMEN WIN MANY SPORTS??
As I understand it, there are 1000+ biological-men who can run faster than the fastest biological-woman, so was imagining a future where it becomes normal for a tiny fraction (0.1% to 1%) of non-trans elite athletes to adjust thei…
QJ, dont feel the need to respond... I just could not help but to respond:
WILL TRANS WOMEN WIN MANY SPORTS??
As I understand it, there are 1000+ biological-men who can run faster than the fastest biological-woman, so was imagining a future where it becomes normal for a tiny fraction (0.1% to 1%) of non-trans elite athletes to adjust their self determination specifically to BECOME a world champion. It would not take many folks to decided they had a bit of room in their life for a bit of ambiguity. The stakes would be high... millions in advertising etc. and the gold medal title. And just 0.1% would be enough.... dont know what will happen.
ON THE MEANING OF WOMEN
I think both this generation and next generation know what a biological-women and self-declared-women are. The difference will be which of these definitions is given primacy when one simply uses the generic term "woman."
I think the next generation will not be troubled. I think they will have SWITCHED the default meaning to the latter, but since they all collectively understand that "woman" now means "a person who self-ascribes a collection of stereotypical behaviors" there will be no issue. They will simply have a separate term like "biologically female" or such to refer to the physical state of a person. I think this is a fine situation, and no one will be upset that the definitions are "wrong". (those upset people will be dead)
But I also predict no one will try to connecting physiologically-female attributes to "women" any longer since it will then be understood that woman no longer means biologically female. So elite sport designations won't be tied in this way, also maternity related, and health related issues will not be tied to the term "woman" but instead will be tied to the more cumbersome biologically-female term... or maybe they will invent a distinct term for the bio case. whatever, I bet it will work out.
We are just in this weird present state where we have rules tied to the generic term "woman" which need to be tied to the "biologically female" category instead. I predict reality will eventually force this to happen.
QJ, dont feel the need to respond... I just could not help but to respond:
WILL TRANS WOMEN WIN MANY SPORTS??
As I understand it, there are 1000+ biological-men who can run faster than the fastest biological-woman, so was imagining a future where it becomes normal for a tiny fraction (0.1% to 1%) of non-trans elite athletes to adjust their self determination specifically to BECOME a world champion. It would not take many folks to decided they had a bit of room in their life for a bit of ambiguity. The stakes would be high... millions in advertising etc. and the gold medal title. And just 0.1% would be enough.... dont know what will happen.
ON THE MEANING OF WOMEN
I think both this generation and next generation know what a biological-women and self-declared-women are. The difference will be which of these definitions is given primacy when one simply uses the generic term "woman."
I think the next generation will not be troubled. I think they will have SWITCHED the default meaning to the latter, but since they all collectively understand that "woman" now means "a person who self-ascribes a collection of stereotypical behaviors" there will be no issue. They will simply have a separate term like "biologically female" or such to refer to the physical state of a person. I think this is a fine situation, and no one will be upset that the definitions are "wrong". (those upset people will be dead)
But I also predict no one will try to connecting physiologically-female attributes to "women" any longer since it will then be understood that woman no longer means biologically female. So elite sport designations won't be tied in this way, also maternity related, and health related issues will not be tied to the term "woman" but instead will be tied to the more cumbersome biologically-female term... or maybe they will invent a distinct term for the bio case. whatever, I bet it will work out.
We are just in this weird present state where we have rules tied to the generic term "woman" which need to be tied to the "biologically female" category instead. I predict reality will eventually force this to happen.