• PRE should be functioning as per usual. Please email admin@puntroadend.com to report anything odd that is occuring over the next few days as we settle a few database issues.

Is PC a euphemism for 'nice?'

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
When the concept of objective, observable reality is trumped by intellectually dishonest emotional motives, PC culture certainly has gone far beyond simply being a euphemism for 'nice' (or good manners). Sure, we should be aiming to be polite and courteous to people. Treating them with the respect and dignity of being an individual person. But at the same time, refusing to abandon observable fact and reason does not equate to denying a person their humanity (which seems to be the inference activists in these areas continually make to emotionally blackmail society into meeting their demands).


Transgender athletes: cheats and sophists
Nicholas Brown

The problem with trying to accommodate every individual’s feelings and desires is that biological realities must eventually be ignored. To afford transgender athletes a place in female competition is as morally reprehensible as it is intellectually dishonest.

In addition to being grossly inequitable for women, it is symptomatic of a culture allowing emotion to reconstruct its logical and ethical parameters. Progressive ideology only rewards those selfish enough to demand inclusion at the expense of fairness for others. In the process, the integrity of athletic competition has been undermined and feminists the world over are left to wonder how men are allowed to be better at being women than actual women.

Not only must women tolerate the inclusion of biological males in their competition, they must also not comment on or question decisions allowing transgender athletes to compete. That is unless they wish to be called transphobic bigots on social media and be forced to publicly apologise. That’s what happened to cyclist Jenifer Wagner, the third placed woman who dared to question the inclusion of transgender athlete Rachel McKinnon at the World Masters Championships. McKinnon subsequently became world champion and now holds a world record over the 200-metre sprint.

In a world-class display of mental gymnastics, McKinnon argued that policing testosterone levels of transgender athletes is a violation of their human rights. McKinnon contended “focusing on performance advantage is largely irrelevant because this is a rights issue.” In other words: “My self-proclaimed, subjective assertion that I am a woman overrides any concerns surrounding athletic integrity and scientific validity.” McKinnon also reassured us that we “shouldn’t be worried about trans people taking over the Olympics. We should instead be worried about their fairness and human rights.” For now at least, it seems that McKinnon and other transgender sports stars will continue to call the shots while sporting associations fumble around with the definitions of male and female.

Despite standing at 6’2” and weighing over one hundred kilograms, athletes like Hannah (formerly Callum) Mouncey will continue playing handball for Australia’s women’s team. Hannah brings a wealth of experience, body mass and strength from her former days representing the Australian men’s team. In the USA, high school athletes Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood will continue to finish first and second in their State 100 and 200 metre championships, often 10 metres clear of their competition. Fallon Fox will continue to knock out female MMA competitors. One hundred and thirty-one kilogram weightlifters like New Zealander Laurel Hubbard will be permitted to win gold medals at international weightlifting events. Perhaps a higher bone density and a life of lifting as an adult male might have assisted Hubbard, but who cares about that when we can care more about her feelings instead.

Sporting organisations the world over struggle to define what makes someone a man or woman. In the past, the sex ascribed at birth determined which competition an individual could enter. Other organisations such as the IOC and NCAA now require two years of hormone therapy, while school sporting organisations simply require a competitor to identify as a women.

Why not revert to the simple Barr body test that can determine a person’s sex by analysing their chromosomes? Unfortunately legal precedent has already been set by the New York Supreme Court invalidating the use of such testing. In 1976, Renee Richards was denied entry to the US Open after spectators began to suspect she may in fact be the former male state champion Richard Raskind. Maybe her 6’2” stance and having the fastest serve in the competition was a giveaway.

By suing the United States Tennis Association however, Richards was eventually allowed to play. Judge Alfred Ascione ruled the Barr test to be “grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable, and a violation of her rights.” The problem with prioritising self-affirmed rights over necessary testing is that the rights of every other female competitor are forfeited in the name of inclusivity. This issue has not yet been dealt with by major sporting organisations that are too afraid or reluctant to stamp out such blatant disregard for decades of scientific research.

Speaking of scientific research, endocrinologist Dr Ramona Krtuzick has been one of a very few professionals to publicly speak out regarding MMA fighter Fallon Fox. Fox of course being former military man Burton Boyd who transitioned at the age of 31. Krtuzick remained unconvinced that Fox had lost any physical advantage despite undertaking hormone treatment.

“Typically, you’re looking at about 15 years after androgen suppression and sexual reassignment surgery to really start to see significant changes in bone density. It’s been too early for her to see much of a decrease in bone mass or to make her equal to that of a female. She started off with a much higher bone density than other women the same age, and therefore will maintain a lot of that for a while. Additionally, because she is taking oestrogen, that will actually help to maintain that bone mass. Women also have lighter, childbearing hips because of the difference in hormones during the body’s developmental years. Her skeleton, body mass and shape developed a long time ago. Those changes cannot be undone. They are permanent.” Krtuzick also stated that Fox has a naturally higher propensity to build and maintain muscle mass because she was once a fully developed, adult male. “You can’t ever take that away from her.”

Fox’s opponent Tamikka Brents required seven head staples after suffering a concussion and orbital bone fracture when fighting Fox. Following the fight Brents revealed her thoughts via twitter: “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right. Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch.”

Aside from bone density, skeletal structure and years spent training as adult males; men possess a higher mass of haemoglobin in their blood. In addition to higher haemoglobin levels, men also have a greater total blood volume than women. As a result, women have a reduced capacity to transport oxygen. The female heart is less effective at pumping blood and muscles are slower to extract oxygen from that blood. Because these factors are directly linked to aerobic fitness and muscular endurance, biological differences between the sexes in athletic performance cannot be ignored. The transition from man to woman does not magically remove the higher volume of blood and haemoglobin count.

Another relatively new myth propagated by trans activists is that testosterone does not build muscle mass and therefore higher levels should not be considered advantageous. If testosterone does nothing to enhance performance, why is it a prohibited substance? In 2006, testosterone was in fact the single most-common banned substance detected in urine tests at WADA-accredited laboratories. Testosterone represented 26 per cent of all “adverse analytical findings”. In 2000, testosterone also accounted for the largest fraction (34 per cent) of AAS-positive urine tests at the Sydney Olympic Games.

Despite prohibiting the use of testosterone, the IOC’s official policy allows trans athletes to compete with far more testosterone in their system than almost every elite female athlete. The average elite female athlete produces between 0.1 and 3.08 nanomoles of testosterone per litre of blood. Fewer than one per cent of elite female athletes produce more than 3.08 nanomoles. The acceptable testosterone levels for transgender women are set at a lofty 10 nanomoles per litre by the International Olympic Committee. This is more than three times higher than the normal levels of testosterone found in 99 per cent of female athletes.

For those who remain unconvinced of testosterone’s ability to improve performance, a 2011 study from Steven Stanton and Ruth Wood succinctly outlines the advantages higher testosterone levels yield for competitors. In an article for Hormonal Behaviour, the main benefit of testosterone is its ability to reduce body fat. As women have a far higher body fat percentage than men, trans athletes have the advantage of a greater lean body mass to compete with. The study also draws on material from 2003 (Storer et al) which demonstrates testosterone’s ability to stimulate an increase in muscle mass. Furthermore, androgens act on specific substrates in the brain to increase aggression and motivation for competition.

To assert that men who transition to women have no competitive advantage is simply delusional and denigrating to the achievements of real women. Not only does it undermine decades of scientific research, it has made a complete mockery of the idea of fair athletic competition. Transgender participation in female sport is not opposed due to intolerance of transgender people. It is not about targeted harassment, it is not about hatred and it is certainly not about discrimination. The self-declared “rights” of transgender athletes to demand inclusion should never usurp the right of women to safely and fairly compete against other women.
 

glantone

dog at the footy, punt rd end
Jun 5, 2007
1,066
5
Interesting posts. Have something to add when i get access to our desktop computer. Bloody torture indulging in complex issues by mobile key pads...hahaha
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Champion
Feb 3, 2017
3,791
454
Common sense article. Perhaps there should be male, female and transgender categories?
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Speaking of euphemisms, The Age is running with a good one in "Aspiring rapper arrested over death of Israeli student", "aspiring" substituting for "unemployed".

The Australian was more pragmatic, going with "Alcoholic squatter was on bail".
 

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
21,991
515
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Speaking of euphemisms, The Age is running with a good one in "Aspiring rapper arrested over death of Israeli student", "aspiring" substituting for "unemployed".

The Australian was more pragmatic, going with "Alcoholic squatter was on bail".
The always objective Clementine Ford has gone quiet on this POS, maybe because he’s Aboriginal.

But she’s happy to bash white males for everything.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,447
84
Brisbane
Coburgtiger said:
God you guys can sook about nothing.

At its absolute worst political correctness is annoying because you have to watch what you say in public.

At the other end of the spectrum, you might be beaten and abused for holding hands with your partner, or looking brown.

I know which side of the spectrum I'd err on..

Extremes are very rarely useful. But aside from made up strawmen like being annoyed about the word 'Chairperson', most of the 'PC movement' are just asking for basic respect and human rights for all.

Unfortunately, allowing basic rights to all (gay marriage, black people voting, women being allowed to work) is apparently PC gone mad.
At its absolute worst political correctness morphs into political control which bans people from uttering certain words. A large part of the population already right now supports banning speech and spreading PC throughout our culture is the first step to then push for legislative change. It is the natural evolution to full totalitarian control as once the population becomes numb to basic truths then they are more easily controlled. War is peace, taxes are voluntary, serfdom is freedom.

It is not politically incorrect to beat someone and/or abuse them for holding hands with their partner, or looking brown. Beating someone is called assault and abusing them for those reasons is called being an *smile*. We don't need the PC police to prevent that.
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
Giardiasis said:
At its absolute worst political correctness morphs into political control which bans people from uttering certain words. A large part of the population already right now supports banning speech and spreading PC throughout our culture is the first step to then push for legislative change. It is the natural evolution to full totalitarian control as once the population becomes numb to basic truths then they are more easily controlled.
And this is where those pushing various PC causes begin to - rather ironically - look eerily similar to the religious zealots they dispise .
 

glantone

dog at the footy, punt rd end
Jun 5, 2007
1,066
5
DavidSSS said:
That is a rubbish post Glantone. Straw men and women all over the place.

The "left" as you label it has been critical of the veil, niqab etc for decades and feminists have been criticising oppression of women in Islamic countries for well over 50 years, and this includes Islamic feminists such as Nawal Al-Sadawi (might need to check this spelling) and Fatima Mernisi who are a couple who come to mind without having to look anything up.

But, again, I need to point out that a knee jerk reaction of just labeling it barbarism or whatever will get you nowhere. We need to engage with the culture of Islam, even question the interpretation of the relevant passages of the Quran (hint: like just about every religious text it is very open to interpretation) which from my limited knowledge does not mention the veil or niqab directly. Some of the practices pre-date Islam too, a good example is genital mutilation which existed prior to Islam. This does not let Islam off the hook as the religion supports and encourages this practice.

I didn't see the right or conservatives being vocal about this until it became a trendy cause for them (just look at Hanson as an example - back when she was first in parliament it was the Asians who were the problem, now she sees Islam as the latest right wing/conservative bandwagon to jump on). I also notice the continued support by right wing governments of regimes like that in Saudi Arabia. I expect nothing else, bunch of hypocrites.

DS
We’re talking about pc, right?
Don’t know about straw men, the observations I made about life for women under Islamic theocracies are fact, with or without your consent.

About the left, I’ve been pretty clear I thought that pc was driven by the fundamental left or the extreme left. As I said the left traditionally supports the under dog and you’re right the left have been critical of the veil for decades and they still are but they don’t enjoy the current public profile that the extreme left do. The extreme left have hijacked the movement’s public identity. For a lot of people the left are now social justice warriors and anarchists.

The traditional left, haven’t taken the extremists to task and have been reduced to voyeurism on issues like Islamic misogyny. Weak as p!ss. I don’t know any feminists – male or female - of my vintage (over 50’s) who aren’t appalled at the misogynistic structures that women must endure under Islam. They are appalled because they see women under attack. They see an international human right - the rights of women - under attack whereas the extreme left see a minority under attack. Political correctness seems to put more emphasis on the rights of the minority as a group rather than on the rights of the individuals within the minority.
So here, Muslim women become a minority within a minority with no true representation from the left because the left can't represent two contradictory positions simultaneously.

It’s so *smile*ed up that while women in Iran, at great personal risk, are protesting the law that forces them to wear a hijab or risk serious punishment, the pc left here are defending the right of women to wear the hijab, a right which they already have and is not under threat.

And the only people who bring this to public attention are the right, who for the most part and its just my opinion, wouldn't lose much sleep over the rights of minorities or the rights of women living under Islam. The right see clearly observable facts which the pc left refuse to acknowledge and so the right, can on occasions, take advantage of this situation to further their own agendas whatever they may be. In this case, it might be bigotry against Muslims.

As for me calling the treatment of women in theocratic states like Saudi Arabia as barbarism being a knee jerk reaction, well, what would you call it? It has been going on for years.
I also think circumcision of any kids – Muslim, Christian etc etc is total child abuse, a jailable offence and utter barbarism but religion makes it ok. Until recently some Rabbis in the USA used to suck the blood out of babies’ circumcised dicks !!! Not only were defenseless babies having their tiny dicks operated on - without anesthetics - they were then orally molested by some old rabbi.... until a few babies died from herpes and the practice was halted. Barbarism.
 

glantone

dog at the footy, punt rd end
Jun 5, 2007
1,066
5
Panthera Tigris said:
I think people get confused between what is "Islamic culture" and what is the ancient tribal culture within given regions of the Middle East. The confusion not only comes from outsiders, but from people in the Middle East itself. Although no doubt, the two have become intermingled over the years as did Christianity with western European culture.

Certainly this is a point my mate, who is a Bangladeshi Muslim, made when we were discussing this. He feels absolutely no kinship with Saudi Muslims for example. Finds them as foreign and their ritualised practices as backward and strange as a born and bred Anglo-Aussie would. And I tend to think he makes a strong case. Many of these practices stem from various Arabic tribal cultures, not "Islamic culture" as such. That said, if we were to criticise Arabic tribal cultures, probably brings the unimaginative howls of "RACIST' to the fore even more so than criticising a religion.
Of course, what would a Muslim from Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraq have in common apart from the religion ? .... absolutely nothing! Just like what what a Christian from Australia, Brazil and The Philippines have in common.

On Islamic kinship, Ali Rizvi (co-founder of Secular Jihadists for a Muslim Enlightenment) notes, the Sunni don't believe the Shia are true Muslims because they have a different interpretation, and the Shia and the Sunnis don't believe the Ahmadis are true Muslims, and the Ahmadis don't believe that ISIS are true Muslims and eventually when you look at who declares who not to be true Muslims, you end up with no Muslims at all. hahahahaha.......

For anyone interested in women rights and Islam (and infact Islam and Muslims) the podcasts and videos of the following are amazingly informative: Secular Jihadists for a Muslim Enlightenment - https://secularjihadists.libsyn.com/ and Ex Muslims of North America- https://exmuslims.org/
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
11,133
201
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Speaking of euphemisms, The Age is running with a good one in "Aspiring rapper arrested over death of Israeli student", "aspiring" substituting for "unemployed".

The Australian was more pragmatic, going with "Alcoholic squatter was on bail".
for someone so worried about public safety i am surprised your only comment on another female murdered by a male is about newspaper headlines.
I thought you would be straight on here with suggestions such as banning all males from being out alone at night.
 

HR

Tiger Superstar
Mar 20, 2013
1,312
57
Coburgtiger said:
Too many morons on this thread, I'm out.
Remember this one CT? Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me! Unless of course I took offence to being called a *******. Have a nice day.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Brodders17 said:
for someone so worried about public safety i am surprised your only comment on another female murdered by a male is about newspaper headlines.
I thought you would be straight on here with suggestions such as banning all males from being out alone at night.
I’m cautiously in favour of the death penalty being reinstated. Who’s with me?
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
1,358
563
The home of Dusty
I think in cases of horrific crime when there is no question of guilt or release (Martin Bryant, Gargasoulas et al;) then it is a reasonable option.

Think the average prisoner costs us about 120k per annum, I'd imagine those types are significantly higher so just on the cost to warehouse them for potentially 60 plus years I think it stacks up.
 

HR

Tiger Superstar
Mar 20, 2013
1,312
57
Brodders17 said:
for someone so worried about public safety i am surprised your only comment on another female murdered by a male is about newspaper headlines.
I thought you would be straight on here with suggestions such as banning all males from being out alone at night.
]Brodders what do you think about The Age headline? What about the Australian? No agenda. Just your opinion. Cannot wait......
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
11,133
201
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
I’m cautiously in favour of the death penalty being reinstated. Who’s with me?
so you think we should punish those guilty of a crime, and not infringe on the rights of others?
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
11,133
201
HR said:
]Brodders what do you think about The Age headline? What about the Australian? No agenda. Just your opinion. Cannot wait......
i havent seen either article and have no opinion on the headlines. hope the wait wasnt too long.....
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
I’m cautiously in favour of the death penalty being reinstated. Who’s with me?
To be totally honest. From a theoretical perspective, morally I have absolutely no issue with the death penalty for people who commit disgusting crimes such as this - violent sexual assaults/murders, child rapists/murderers, that sort of thing. But from a practical perspective, I suppose as I've got older, I've become pragmatic enough to realise, there will never be such a thing as a perfectly accurate justice system, so you probably can't do it.

That said, time and time again ad nauseam, how many times do we have to see these types of crimes committed, only to find out that the perpetrator has a prior record for these types of crimes and evidently, is a ticking time bomb to take it to the next level? How are these people even out walking among the general community? Light sentences, parole etc, when they seem to have little propensity for rehabilitation and remain a risk to the community. People like this are incapable of living in a civil society, so don't deserve the privilege

Civil libertarians who advocate for prisoners often arrogantly preach to us great unwashed, about how prison shouldn't be a place for society to seek revenge and retribution, it should be a place of rehabilitation. OK, if we're taking that line, why should someone who is incapable of rehabilitation ever get out? It's a public safety issue if nothing else.