News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
P1 - Transgender women who possess an unfair advantage should be allowed to compete on equal grounds with women AFAB
P2 - Anyone can transition
Consequentially - Everyone can transition in order to gain an unfair advantage
I don't know what's so difficult to understand here. Reductio ad absurdum doesn't care about the practicality of the absurd outcome.
That says it's an "argumentative technique" and not a fallacy? I think it's a way to demonstrate the flaws of an argument.
It's also irrelevant because that's not even what I did. That's because:
Not just anyone can transition, a cis person who went through HRT and socially transitioned would give themselves gender dysphoria. Being trans is something inherent to trans individuals, it's not a trick used to game the system.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I was using the reductio ad absurdum as an argumentative technique throughout this discussion.
Fair enough, I'm willing to give you that people that transition just to gain an edge in sports wouldn't necessarily be considered "trans". At the end of the day my core argument was that it wouldn't be fair to let trans women who potentially possess an edge physically to participate in sports where that physical edge is salient because it could be taken to this absurd end.
C'est fini
No, actually, I thought you were accusing me of taking your absurd argument to its logical conclusion. I didn't realize you were justifying why you are playing rhetorical games to say stupid shit like "cis men are going to transition to cheat in women's sports". It's nonsensical, it won't happen, anyone that tried would quit when their boobs started growing because gender dysphoria is real.
Gender dysphoria is torture. It's not a fun way to game the system and cheat at women's sports. The money and fame don't justify mutilating your body untill you want to die, especially in women's sports where there isn't a lot of money or fame to go around. Suggesting otherwise is basically saying that gender dysphoria isn't a big deal, that people would willingly do that to themselves for a minor advantage. It's inherently transphobic.
This isn't the absurd logical conclusion of letting trans women play sports, this is a transphobic misunderstanding of dysphoria.
Talking to you is self harm.
👍