Disenfranchising Women
Link to Quote: ‘Biology Is Not Bigotry’ | National Review
A few days ago, Senate Democrats held a hearing in order to "protect the LGBTQ+ citizens." The main focus of the hearing was to further the acceptance and promotion of the radical left's latest special group: "the trans gender Community." In other words, Senate democrats sought to make this group another "protected class." Of course, as any honest person knows, there are serious problems with the promotion of a tiny fragment of our society (less than 1%) over women's basic rights (50.52% of the US is female.) We also know about the effort by those in education to get between children and parents on the matter. To the left this has become a mission. Only two days ago the cause ran into reason.
Here is the HRC President, Kelley Robinson, trying to spin it to Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA):
https://youtu.be/UE0L92lZM58?list=RDNSUE0L92lZM58
You do have to sit on your brains to make any sense out of the fanatic who is president of, believe it or not: "the Human Rights Commission."
We did get to hear from a woman who is a victim: Ms. Riley Gaines:
Note that not a single so-called feminist, neither here nor anywhere else has stood up for women's rights in this matter. Should I say "most" feminists are simply surrogates for the radical left. They support any idiotic radical idea even if takes away the rights of women. A radical idea that is in conflict with basic science. From what I can see none have the guts to admit it.
Btw, Ms. Gaines eventually shut down the claim by the radical Ms. Robinson that men couldn't beat Serena Williams in tennis.
Ms. Gaines:
“Both Serena and Venus lost to the 203rd ranked male tennis player, which — they’re phenoms for women."
Riley Gaines fact checks transgender claims as Democrats push for ‘gender identity’ as protected class | The College Fix
Finally, we had Sen Hawley reveals all that Ms. Gaines went through via the left:
That was yet another leftist protest that turned violent. The San Fransisco Police standing by as it happened. We know who calls the shots there. That story to be found on page 49 of the MSM. I'm not sure that things turned out as Senate democrats had hoped the other day. Anyone who got to see it now knows that the left is disenfranchising women.
Tags
Who is online
554 visitors
"Gaines is a former collegiate swimmer and University of Kentucky graduate who competed against Lia (Will) Thomas during last year's NCAA championships. Thomas swam on the men’s swimming team for three seasons at the University of Pennsylvania before he started competing on the girls’ team during the 2021-'22 season.
During her testimony, Gaines recalled how she and her fellow female athletes watched Thomas compete and beat multiple female swimmers. When Gaines tied with Thomas for fifth place after competing against him in the 200-yard freestyle race, the NCAA told the female athlete she would have to go home “empty-handed” while Thomas received a trophy.
“When I asked why, which was a question they were not prepared to be asked, I actually appreciate their honesty. They said it was crucial Thomas have it for picture purposes,” Gaines testified."
Riley Gaines' testimony at Senate hearing: 3 key moments | Politics News (christianpost.com)
Thread removed for no value. Please remain on topic.
[deleted]
Feminism has devolved into pressuring female college students to get naked in front of men.
Another ridiculous comment.
[deleted]
He doesn't think it's a big deal
Your hysteria over this issue will be self-defeating.
For every 1 trans in college women's sports there are 3,999 biological women.
If you put the issue in some sort of reasonable perspective maybe there would be something to talk about, but you are consistently hysterical about this.
Your disregard for the welfare of children and the rights of women will defeat you. Tolerance of this shit is cratering.
If one of them was your daughter or granddaughter would you still feel the same? That her getting naked to change into a sports uniform or swimsuit in front of the trans female was no big deal and she should just deal with it? If she competed at the high school level and placed 17th in an NCAA meet and lost her scholarship would you still think it's no big deal?
A trans who has gone thru male puberty by nature has more muscle and lung capacity than a female who has gone thru female puberty. I thought you guys where the party who wanted to follow the science, or is that just when the science is something that you like...
I do not object to girls and women reacting to and complaining about trans in girls sports.
I object to the idea that this is one of the compelling issues of our times.
Because competitive trans women in women's sports are rare as unicorns...
Ok, that much I agree with. There are much more important things that Congress should be working on that deal with the kitchen table issues of the American people. But Congress is supposed to be staffed by adults who should be able to do more than just one thing at a time and I do think that protecting Title IX is also important. It was a major step for women's equality and it seems like this latest issue is reducing the equality that women once had.
Which one more than should be.
Since it doesn't really affect anybody, we'll just go ahead and let them play with the boys.
If you deny trans the right to play sports what else could you deny them?
The number of things less common than 1 in 4000 will surprise you.
For example, that's about 2.5 times more common American men over 60 and at least 6'3".
It's 1.5 times more common as gun deaths in the US.
It's about 25 times more common than the number of neurosurgeons.
Regardless, the idea that any of them should be playing women's sports is moronic.
You'll notice I said "play with the boys".
If they're not good enough make the men's team, that puts them in the same group with 98% of people.
Odd how nobody seems to give a shit about unathletic men being "denied" the opportunity to play.
It is truly a non issue that CONS/gop/gqp make an issue
Your comment is silly, they pop up all over the US along with the rest of world.
Then why are Democrats/Leftists trying to cram it down everyone's throats?
You created this problem; and now are bitching because people aren't happy about it.
Stop trying to replace women with men!
The left created the issue and now they whine when people don't like what they created.
Live with it.
There is no issue here created by the 'left'.
Live with it.
Who insists that guys compete against girls?
Loved when Billie Jean King kicked the shit out of Bobbie Riggs.
yeah, that was something, watching a woman 26 years the junior of her opponent beat him!
Don't believe the outcome would have been the same had she faced a man ranked in the top 50.
You don't get a menu of competitors and get to select who are the opposers. In a way that is the nature of competition, isn't it? The only question is have all rules been abided.
I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
The BJK-Riggs match was exactly hand-selected competition.
The point you missed was that men and women can not compete equally against each other in most sports. Therefore, women sports should be confined to biological women. Yes, I said biological women.
Riggs, a degenerate gambler, threw the match.
As for BJK and Riggs (which I admit to not seeing), so what? If they agreed to it, then the two people accessed the measure of each other! The result being what it is-including and accepting of age deferential. There is no issue of age to reject afterwards.
As for competitive sports, the emphasis is on COMPETITION not equality. You go in to win and hopefully come out as winner. The only question being as the rules as written, explained, and executed been followed (Refereed). If so, then the competition is legitimate. If not, then the competition is illegitimate.
Conservatives are arguing for bias, plain and simple. And I can only imagine it as being a political/cultural bias!
See comment 13 for how the World Athletics (International sports/committee) is handling the issue of transsexualism. It will enlighten those who wish to be so endowed. Because those leaders are taking the issue of transsexualism in sports to heart and by doing so bridging and widening the lines of inclusion, diversity, and equality. Shocking I know and for some of us "old-timers" change is simply not readily acceptable. Change is coming (through science), nevertheless!
Riggs had previously destroyed the top-ranked women's tennis player in straight sets.
Athletes and people familiar with sports note a significant disadvantage of a player 55 years old playing against someone 27 years younger.
Trans may compete as men since that is what they really are.
Problem solved.
I can appreciative the differences in age too. It triggered outrage in you? Why? You told me they chose each other for this (sporting) game! In which case, was it a charity event (remember I didn't see it)?
You're mistaken. The society of world athletics has protocols for admission of trans-females into the world of sports. Perhaps, it is the United States conservative community that needs to accept what science has made possible instead of demanding the advancing world, fallback to its wishes of "safe and comfortable" categories!
Strange question.
What led you to ask it?
Trans can compete against the men they are and leave women to compete against women.
Doesn't it depend on the sport?
World Athletics recently tightened its rules impacting transgender women athletes track and field events. There doesn't seem to be a unifying framework and each international sport as differing standards.
Good thought by the way, Drinker of the Wry!
Is it effort to enjoin/solve the problem. Is it all-encompassing? Begs the question: It may be born of necessity or a workable compromise that lays a (new) baseline.
In any case, it advances on the dilemma of what to do with talented trans-athletes (and those youngsters who are becoming) who have need of a sports/competitive outlet at the world-class level. I am impressed that other nations are dealing with the dilemma factually and actually; they are not getting bogged down/stalled by political/cultural warfare over the morality of the issue nor making demands that people simply "stand pat" in an impossible/infeasible state-if only to make those who pass judgements about them feel content that lines have not been crossed.
In international sports, as in others, we have binary gender classifications with volleyball net and hurdle heights, different distances for 3 pointers in basketball, and in some sports, weight classifications. Maybe we should have a transwoman classification as well.
Do transmales have the same competative difficulties internationaly?
Reply/Answer:
Can't locate the answer to the males right now, but I read on Saturday that transmales can participate by unlimiting increases in testosterone. That is, as long as it is safe, the testosterone levels are permissible.
UPDATE: I have a new link to an article on World Athletics view of transgendered female athletes see below (issued in 2021).
UPDATE 2021:
International Olympic Committee releases new framework on transgender inclusion
16 November 2021
New guidance from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) says there should be no assumption that a transgender athlete automatically has an unfair advantage in female events.
Its new framework on transgender inclusion, released on Tuesday, places responsibility on individual federations to determine eligibility criteria in their sport.
The 10-point document is "not legally binding" and not every sport is expected to find a solution before Paris 2024.
The framework, which replaces IOC guidelines issued in 2015, also changes the policy on requiring transgender women to suppress testosterone levels in order to compete in female events.
The old policy that said transgender athletes would be allowed to compete provided their testosterone levels were below a certain limit for at least 12 months before their first competition.
Relying on testosterone levels alone in female events is no longer deemed sufficient grounds to determine whether or not a competitor has an unfair advantage .
"You don't need to use testosterone [to decide who can compete] at all. But this is guidance, it's not an absolute rule," said IOC medical director Richard Budgett.
The framework was prepared over two years in consultation with more than 250 athletes and other stakeholders, and will be implemented after next year's Beijing Winter Games.
"What we are offering to all the international federations is our expertise and a dialogue, rather than jumping to a conclusion," said Kaveh Mehrabi, director of the IOC's athletes' department.
"This is a process that we have to go through with each federation on a case-by-case basis and see what is required."
The IOC's new framework also applies to athletes with differences of sex development (DSD) such as the South African 800m runner Caster Semenya.
Governing body World Athletics defended its existing policy, which forces DSD athletes to suppress their testosterone levels to compete in certain events, citing the rejection of Semenya's challenge of the rules by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2019.
Its statement read: "To the extent the IOC document diverges from our regulation, we would simply note that the Court of Arbitration for Sport panel in 2019 found that the DSD regulations were a necessary, reasonable, and proportionate means of achieving World Athletics' legitimate objective of maintaining fair and meaningful competition in the female category."
The IOC also said medical testing and "invasive physical examinations" used to verify an athlete's gender were "disrespectful" and "potentially harmful".
"We really want to make sure that athletes are not pressured or coerced into making a harmful decision about their bodies," said Magali Martowicz, IOC head of human rights.
The guidance stresses that athletes should be part of the decision-making process.
It adds that restrictions should be based on robust credible research and that sports should follow all the criteria to prove a disproportionate advantage or safety risk exists.
"The IOC recognises that it must be within the remit of each sport and its governing body to determine how an athlete may be at a disproportionate advantage compared with their peers, taking into consideration the nature of each sport," reads the framework.
"The IOC is therefore not in a position to issue regulations that define eligibility criteria for every sport, discipline or event across the very different national jurisdictions and sport systems."
So it seems.
Your comment is. . . negligent of consideration. Boys and men do not join female competitions because they are interested in ogling females. It is simply a conservative ploy to exploit the trans-individual being there. Who can help it if conservatives won't even try to oblige or understand the 'mystery' of transpeople? I say mystery because anybody who has ever seen co-ed facilities or models (on set), or stage presentations, know that there can be sharing of locker room or dressing room space between even heterosexual males and females.
That aspect of Gaines 'complaint' is simply tragic (for her), but one in which she can surmount emotionally if she bothers to get to know what trans-people are inside-rather than looking only at their outside appearances!
More to the point, while I can empathize with her seeing male genitalia or buttcheeks, I take exception with her subtle hint that she was 'exposed' to anything negative of which a male ERECTION would have been indicative of the other being 'turned on.'
This is quite the leap-of-faith to claim that they are disenfranchising women. How?
It does appear to be a big stretch to claim the women are being disenfranchised. What legal right are they losing? No one is telling the female athletes they cant compete.
What a disgusting comment. They can't beat a biological man. I know you understand.
He tied for fifth place. So there were other transgendered people who were racing that day?
What are you talking about?
Don't women have a right to excell at sports?
Don't women have a right to use a restroom without a man in it?
Are all rights reserved for the special interest groups that the left deems fit for rights?
Do you know what human rights are?
Do you?
Do you need me to explain it to you?
Four beat your poster child and one tied them.
There are stalls in most restrooms. Make them all unisex and be done with your prudish, Victorian mores. Teach everyone from birth that the naked body is not an object to be coveted or repulsed by but a natural part of being human. Everyone has one.
No. Rights are for every human being. From the content and character of your posts, you wish to deny some humans their rights in preference to other humans. That is fascist, definitionally.
Yes I do. You, quite apparently, Don't.
Simplistic blather. Do you want your daughter or granddaughter have to undress in front of a male or have to observe his shrunken dick?
I would much rather the dick be shrunken....
More so than you it seems
Emphatically. A shrunken penis is indicative of a lack of true interest! Added bonus: A limp penis can't give out cooties!
And let's get real: girls are no "fainting violets" when it comes to 'rock-hard' penises in the larger scheme of life! Though, I don't wish to imply that this girl/woman is promiscuous. But, come on now, she has to grow up someday.
And oh by the way, males are dealing with the same thing when it comes to muscle-bound and throbbing, trans-males in the male locker-room. I await males telling their 'horror stories" before a house/senate committee on transgendered individuals in sports!
Oh, and don't get me started on the Lifetime Movie Network (movies made for women by women). Those women of Lifetime are psychotic and dangerous, that is, they are not shrinking violets.
No, not true.
100% truth.
[Deleted]
Typical liberal doublespeak. Liberals claim that biological sex is different than psychological gender identity. Yet that gender identity is defined by sexual activity.
There are at least 50 trans women competing on female sports teams in the United States at the collegiate level 1 2 . Joanna Harper, an author and researcher at Britain's Loughborough University, estimated that about 50 of the roughly 200,000 athletes competing in women’s sports at the collegiate level in the US are transgender 2 . According to Harper, trans women make up 0.5-1% of the population, so we should be seeing 1,000-2,000 trans women every year in NCAA sports 3 .
50/200000
.99975
That would be the percentage of biological women that are competing in college sports.
I dont object to girls and women who complain about having to compete against trans, in fact I have total sympathy with them.
What I do object to is the idea that this is the most important women's issue of our times, as Nikki Haley so ridiculously recently said.
One can’t help but wonder if this is Freudian, because this is where we will be if this continues.
My sentence makes complete sense, sorry if you cant understand it.
True. The only women anymore appear to be trans women. Biological women are now being referred to as non-men birthing persons.
Where are you looking for women?
About as much sense as that bigot who is president of "human rights" made.
Should be zero percent.
Give it up John. You can't get around it. Your ideology discriminats against women.
One cant help but believe that conservatives, and yes, Republicans, think they can ride the wave of opposition to trans in sports into election victories next year. They are going to be sorely mistaken.
Given the very very few trans athletes in high school or college, the constant "outrage" over the issue from the right can only be seen as a political tactic.
All they have is hate against LGBTQ+ people. Not a winning strategy.
that's an ignorant statement.
Statements such as that are common when people think that everyone must think like they do. We see it daily here on NT. And for millions, it IS a winning strategy.................
After the hearing reporters tried to ask democrat Senators about women's rights to have their own sports. Everyone that was asked reponded robotically with "Trans rights are human rights!"
Yeah, that is the party line.
Fascists are fascists about everything. They are equal opportunity haters.
Look! Over there! To your right!
Is that a fascist??
Oh, no!!!!
Denying a woman a right to decisions regarding her own body smacks of disenfranchisement to me.
Hey, man. Fascists are people too. They just happen to have more rights than some. Until they don't.
Exactly! My right to punch back harder and faster is a given.
So?
No John. A very large majority of US citizens do NOT support or ride on this crazy trans train ideology. That would include a vast majority of biological women, of all races, of all political stripes, rich or poor, religious or not, mothers or not. Pretty much the same can be said of men.
Rational, mentally healthy, and normal people don't deny science and biology and common sense when it comes to this great outpouring of transgenderism being promoted and supported by the left. Growing numbers of the LGB community want nothing to do with these faux women.
Folk are folk. Nobody chooses to be what/who they are.
[Deleted]
Transgenders included?
How about Rachel Dolezal? Or Liz Warren?
LMAO!
do you think it’s okay for governmental institutions to push teenage girls to undress in front of men? If it’s only a couple hundred women pressured, it’s not worth caring about?
So much for sexual harassment, huh?
I dont, but that is not what you said- this is what you said
That is objectively a ridiculous statement.
John, tell me, how many self described "feminists" are there on NT?
Where the hell are they?
What is your point? I assume there are quite a few feminists on NT across a graduated scale. I am a feminist, although I am sure there are some things about feminism it total that I disagree with.
It is really obvious don't you think?
1) Men should not be allowed to compete in women's sports
2) Men should not be allowed in the ladies room.
3) Young children shouldn't be making life altering decisions without the knowledge & consent of their parents
I assume there are quite a few feminists on NT across a graduated scale.
Only two have so identified. Neither have the guts to stand up for women.
I am a feminist, although I am sure there are some things about feminism it total that I disagree with.
Lol.
I'll guarantee you every person at the progressive institutions pushing this nonsense and pressuring female athletes to accept naked men in their locker rooms considers themselves feminists.
Those who object are attacked by feminists.
They' don't fall into your very narrow version of 'feminists'
You would think it would be obvious.
You would think that rational people would look at each other and say "I understand folks have different struggles, but let's be reasonable here."
But that is just not happening.
In my albeit unscientific observation, the only people I see defending men playing women's sports either a) don't know much if anything about sports, never played or coached at any competitive level, and have zero idea just exactly how big and strong elite level male athletes are ... OR 2) have something to gain personally from competing against women.
If you imagine that women are not in danger or have a reasonable chance when competing with men, you just haven't spent any time around male athletes.
And we're going to have unironic conversations about a 5 year old being transgender??? WTF?? How stupid are people? When did we all fall through the looking glass?
Well said. You always bring something to the table.
Well, if there is nothing to talk about WHY IS THE 'nation' TALKING ABOUT IT? This sports issue is a complex one and it will require a COMPROMISE: "ELITE" athletes, male, female, and yes TRANSGENDER need an APPROPRIATE OUT for their talents. It will not do to just say: Trans-athletes should have a league of their own - which bringing in the 600 lb elephant into the room - signals (stigmatizes) to the entirety of the world that this person is medically/surgically altered.
This is not rocket science!
But it will take sincerity and compassion and not just right-wing FAILURES to agree on anything other than there are two sexes: Male and Female. Because NOW there are a "litany" of FLEXIBLE plays on gender that science is going to be bringing forth!
GET READY FOR IT. HOW? An open mind. And a willing and flexible spirit!
Just yesterday, I was stopped in my tracks about a News Nation story: "LAB MEAT COMES TO STORES NEAR YOU!" Meats made in labs. . . okay! Now that is asking me to be flexible to a whole new degree. I balked at the concept for about a day, frankly.
Can my aging system take lab meat? Will I try it (and get the hard part over with - yes, I will!) Only after giving it a fair exposure, try, chance can I honestly say if it will work for me (you, us, them).
Complex issues do have solutions and so thus transgenderism and sports lockerrooms and competitions.
What say you?
No.
Likely out driving their Porches that they own due to stripping in front of fools who stick money in their pants.
Used to be a bouncer in a couple of titty bars and the girls made much more money than I ever did protecting them.
I once heard former pollster Frank Luntz (early 2023) that transsexuals simply do not have sufficient numbers and voting power to attract the attention of republicans/conservatives to their cause. It is a significant indication that what is driving the republican party calculation is not compassion or empathy, but sheer power!
They have made women second class citizens, all in the name of their latest special group.
Isn't that the Democrat play book? Create a group using identity politics and letting them know who hates them and why they should support the Democrat ticket?
Conservative is a "catch-all" for people who forsake their group cause and take up CONSERVATIVE CAUSES as a worldview. And lately conservative causes have been found to be UNPRINCIPLED. The glue that has bound the party faithful together is losing its adhesive properties through riotous living and chaos politics.
only to some folks who definitely aren't conservatives.
How so?
One word: Misogyny
Makes no sense.
It's better than calling women c----- like somebody did the other day.
Women can be misogynist too!
[deleted]
[Comment removed for context]
Those 'women' I was referring to earned the title.
[deleted]
No one earns that title. That word along with "fuck off" needs to go in the dustbin of NT history and should get a hell of a lot more disciplinary action than "no value". I know of a member or two who used the word that got booted when it was directed at other members............
You do huh? I just heard about it 20 minutes ago.
Thanks for the admission that your claim made no sense also!
I've tried to be nice to a few of you today. Act accordingly and bad things won't happen.
[deleted]
[removed]
[removed]
Yes, they earned the title.
Just like men, women can be evil.
I give MTG as an example.
Women were made second-class when conservatives left them out of the original constitution and then used a SPECIAL amendment process to include them. Only now, women apparently still do not have enough votes or influence with republicans to get equal pay! But, carry on about the good of the status quo.
Do you not see any differences between conservatives in the 1700s and those today?
Imagine thinking only Republicans run businesses.
They are all packed into the republican party, instead of the democratic party - even though a subset of MAGA republican/conservatives have control of the entirety of the party. Fiscal conservatism is taking back-seat to win at all cost. Compromise is MIA and considered a thing of the past. Finally, more and more conservatives are being called "RINO" now.
Oh please, I won't even dignify that by trying to 'reason' with it.
no party in DC is the least bit fiscally conservative and haven't been for decades.
that staggering debt we own didn't happen overnight.
I'll skip by the usual litany of why conservatives are so bad
THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ASKED ME!
I know what I asked and saw your reply and responded.
I even told you explicitly I was going to ignore the usual litany of "conservatives bad" nonsense.
No one should bother to keep up with your whimsical moodiness. Two things can be true at once: 1. Conservatives used to accept and respect compromise. 2. Now they have moved from merely being recently bad at compromise to worse - no compromise at all!
I keep telling you I am not interested in your usual litany against conservatives. What will it take for you to believe it?
Assholes will always be assholes.
That is one of the very best summations of the Democratic Party I have ever read.
Kudos, sir!
the claim by the radical Ms. Robinson that men couldn't beat Serena Williams in tennis
That's such a batshit crazy claim that any semi informed person has to know is complete bullshit. The interesting thing is why would she say it in public? She can't be dumb enough to actually believe it, can she? Is she lying because lying is what her cult demands?
It brings to mind what Theodore Dalrymple said about communist propaganda:
Very good Sean.
In such a society everyone is afraid to speak. George Orwell first warned us with his prophetic work: 1984
He warned us of people like you and your buddy Trump, Vic.
Who is telling people that being LGBTQ is wrong? You are.
Who is telling people that speaking out no matter their viewpoint is wrong? You are.
Who is trying to take people's rights away? You are, along with a vast swath of people who feel that their way is the only way.
That's called fascism Vic. Own it.
Orwell was warning us of far right wing fascism.
Wow--just in the nick of time 74 years ago!
This is all a diversion that will fail, women are far more concerned about reproductive healthcare, a subject that has republicans circling a drain of their own making.
No one is being denied reproductive healthcare
Of course they are.
Did she get the abortion? Then she wasn't denied COMPLETELY. Just in her locality. She had to go from her home state to get it. Point is, she still got it.
So easy to say for someone who can't get pregnant.
Did she not? I must have missed that part. Sorry........
Side note. I am not anti-abortion..............but "deny" is a big word.
That's a pretty weak argument, Jim. And it ignores the fact that not every woman has the means to travel, or to establish care for a complicated pregnancy like hers in an area where she doesn't live and doesn't have any relationship with a medical provider. It also ignores the fact that travel can be dangerous for a woman with a complicated pregnancy.
It's advocating putting the mother's life in additional danger for the sake of ideology.
Pro-death and anti-woman.
If anything is aimed at disenfranchising women, laws that intentionally endanger their lives surely qualify.
Such denial of well proven truth/facts.
Why do you all always defend the indefensible?
Nunya.
I don't think you know what that means anyway by the frequency with which you throw it around. Again, not everyone thinks like you do.
It is ignoring your sisters who are being denied their right to excell in sports.
I have repeatedly spoken out against transgendered women participating in women's sports. And you have seen those comments.
This was a response to Greg, who claimed that nobody is being denied reproductive healthcare, in spite of the fact that they are, at risk of their lives.
Good enough Sandy. I'm glad to know one Feminist who stood up for women.
Always the defense of the indefensible
I know that's all you got.
Plus projection, deflection, denial, and delusion.
Wow all three of your gems in one post. Kudos
I'm in total agreement with Sandy.
As I have repeatedly done so, perhaps you should stop making statements such as:
You make such statements rather often in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Really? There are states where you can't get abortion, end of story. There are states that want to charge you with murder if you go out of state for one. There are fake medical groups that are saying that the abortion pill is unsafe and so now there is a ban on them, too.
Obgyns are afraid to perform even medically necessary abortions.
So don't say that no one is denied reproductive healthcare.
I am in partial agreement with sandy
I knew your heart was with those women and girls who simply want to succeed in their own sporting events.
It was good to hear Sandy stand up for them again.
I promise to exclude you from that in the future.
Fair enough?
As am I
That's a pretty narrow minded thought process. Was anything Jim said un-factual or you just pitching a fit because Jim is a male who can't get pregnant? Which goes against the alphabet community claims that a male can get pregnant.
The fact she had to travel brings to light the problems with politicians getting in shit they have no place. Reality is, no matter how it gets spun, an abortion is a medical procedure.
This is the first time I've heard you say it. You really think men should be banned from women's sports?
I actually forgot - your comment also ignores the fact that Texas has attempted to make it illegal, or at least civilly actionable, for a woman to leave the state to have an abortion. Those helping her can be sued by...whoever feels like suing them. The husband trying to save his wife's life, and that of the viable fetus? Yeah, he could be sued for taking her to Colorado for selective reduction to save the lives that could be saved.
Texas's draconian laws have rendered your argument even weaker.
It would be more honest to avoid making sweeping generalizations that aren't true.
You admit that you defend the indefensible
Actually Sandy, I find that most feminist do support the trans men over women having rights. There are a few notables right here.
"Most women support it" is a far cry from
[deleted]
Point taken..........
Name them. You're making sweeping generalizations again and it's not a good look on you
I have repeatedly said I don't think trans women should be competing in women's sports. They should have their own competitions. The only sport I support where every body plays is bowling, My daughter outbowls all the men in her league
#
... and curling
Think about what that means for women in those states to get an abortion.
It means travel - transit, hotel stays, food to eat while in the places they have the abortion.
In the case of those who have medical complications, it can mean an extended stay away from home. If a woman who was extremely ill due to pregnancy manages to have an abortion elsewhere, but has severe complications that linger, she may have to stay in a hospital far from home, with the lack of family support that implies. She may have children who could not travel with her. Her partner may be torn between supporting her and supporting their existing children. If her partner can stay with her, that will mean more hotel rooms, more dining out, possibly trips back and forth to meet obligations both at home and in the hospital.
All because she was denied reproductive healthcare she needed, where she lived and had support.
I tried to be nice to you Sandy. You respond with kicks. I can play rougher.
Here is what typically happens when a "feminist" is asked about men in women's sports:
Did you see what she did Sandy?
She accused that reporter of being a hater.
My mom used to be able to beat my dad at bowling pretty consistently. He's really competitive, so that got to him. But he was also proud of her when they bowled in mixed leagues, and she carried the team more than he did.
I'll include equestrian events - men and women have been competing against each other in those ever since women were no longer expected to ride sidesaddle.
You extrapolate one woman's comments to all feminists, and ignore the words of the feminists with whom you actually interact.
And you don't like being called on it.
Don't put words in my mouth.
Thanks for coming out.
Yes, I thought you were one. I'm glad we finally cleared it up.
Where is JR? He should be here for all of this.
How do you know Ms Jean-Pierre is a feminist?
Besides, you started it with you nasty comments about the women on this forum
I didn't ignore a thing. I've repeatedly asked feminists here to speak on it AND UNTIL NOW I HAVEN"T HEARD A WORD FOR YOU OR YOUR FOLLOWERS.
How's that for calling the nasty out?
With all due respect, did you read the descriptors in the list of states? I saw two where you can't get an abortion but due to the one clinic moving out of state and the other being afraid due to the law being unclear. And what does "near total ban" mean? Not completely out of the question but near. I think NC just passed a law, surely to be vetoed by the governor, to ban them after 15 weeks in most cases. There are enough votes to override the veto though.
Mr G used to be a good bowler but age is getting to him. K routinely outscores him. She's the ringer for his team
one what?
And I have repeatedly spoken out against it. If you've missed my comments, that's on you. Why should I continually repeat what I've already said to counter you when you falsely state that I have never said it? It is not up to me to continually correct your false statements.
I usually avoid your seeds but I had to come in and support my "sisters"
Today is the first time any of you answered the question. If you and Sandy want to be nasty, I can teach you what nasty is.
Some say men can get pregnant.
Don't go there, Vic. You can play that game all by yourself and you will pay the price
Why do you think abortion clinics are moving out of states, Jim? Because they're afraid of bans, violent protestors, or both.
And the vague language of "near total ban" is part of the problem. Most of those bans have exclusions for the life of the mother, but those are worded so vaguely that physicians, you know, the ones who should be the ones who best know how much danger a patient's life is in, are prevented from exercising their professional judgement. Does she have to have an infection from prematurely ruptured membranes? How severe an infection? Do we try antibiotics first? How long do we wait before aborting? What happens if we encounter antibiotic resistance? If we perform an abortion, will we go to jail? If we wait too long, will we be committing malpractice?
The vague language is paralyzing.
I haven't seen you do it once.
If you've missed my comments, that's on you.
I don't read hate group seeds.
Why should I continually repeat what I've already said to counter you when you falsely state that I have never said it?
[deleted]
It is not up to me to continually correct your false statements.
When it comes to false statements, you and your gang lead the way!
You started with false accusations, Vic. Trout and I responded to those accusations. Defending ourselves from false accusations is not nasty. Making them in the first place is.
[deleted]
My sister can outdrive my dad on the golf course, now that he's getting older. He's still more accurate, though.
Bully for them, are you going to live your life based upon an indeterminate number? You're scrambling for excuses.
[deleted]
No, Sandy. You never said anything about it. Do you know why?
Because deep down you follow whatever the goal of the far left is.
You've been called out. Today for the first time you made that statement. You have NEVER defended women!
Snert out loud!
Did you hear what the female swimming champion said?
My husband could beat me every day of the week!"
Now the truth is coming out. You and Sandy are talking about these silly little things that you can do better than men you know.
There it is.
[deleted]
TG, Perrie, sandy - are never nasty.
They never call me ignorant. They never insult me.
Perrie is always decent & gracious. Now why would you bring Perrie into this?
They never call me ignorant. They never insult me.
We shouldn't be calling people names, so why did you call those women C---- the other day?
No one is be denied needed reproductive health care. There is always their primary or ob/gyn or the ER.
Abortion is another matter and needs some restrictions.
Do you define reproductive healthcare simply as abortion?
Your refusal to read some articles here does not render them nonexistent. To say they do not exist on the basis of that refusal is dishonest.
Abortion is a medical procedure which is required by some women in need of reproductive healthcare. And it is being denied to women. So your statement was false.
Sandy has followers?
Way to go, Sandy!
No, she didn't. She said that he was irresponsible with how he phrased his question and he was.
It is part of feminine healthcare and it is being denied in many states.
Vic that is an accusation that you have no proof of.
Exactly. The word "hater" never crossed her lips. He exaggerated the safety issues of trans women competing against cis women. I can assure you, cis women get hurt playing against cis women pretty often. I have the scars to prove it.
Cis men can get hurt competing against cis women. My dad coached our girls' softball team, and one of my teammates just about put a softball down his throat when he was pitching for batting practice. One of my teammates when I played baseball was a girl, and she hit a line drive back at the pitcher that caught him right in the chest. He had bruises that looked like seams for weeks.
Sports carry the risk of injuries, no matter who's playing.
[removed]
it gets worse?
No, but she intentionally misrepresented his question, called him "irresponsible" and his comments "dangerous". Which is ironic, because the most dangerous person in any room is the one trying to control what everybody else says.
He didn't. She pretended they don't exist, and then attacked him for raising the issue.
8th-grade football players get hurt pretty often, too. That's no excuse for lining them up against a college player. I assure you the lawyers and insurance companies understand the basics of that physics, even if the Biden Administration does not.
A man can get hurt in a fistfight with a woman, too. But that's not where the smart money bets.
Thank God it wasn't a boy.
FYI, the average ball exit speed for a DI college softball player is just over 70mph. The average ball exit speed for a DI baseball player is over 95 mph.
There is a reason the rules limit the COR on bats. It's. For. Safety. Kinda pointless having a safety rule for bats if you're going to put a man at the plate who hits 40% harder than the women.
Yes, but probability is real. Physics is real. Safety measures exist for a reason.
The defense of these men playing sports against women is completely moronic. People are willing to throw common sense, fairness and safety completely out the window because they care less about protecting women than they do about protecting the boy in the dress.
His comments were irresponsible and dangerous. And Vic intentionally misrepresented her position.
She didn't pretend dangers don't exist. She said it's complicated, and it is.
Neither did I ever say that the dangers don't exist, so you can quit arguing as if I had. You're attacking a straw man here.
Conservatives have lain in wait for 50 years to waylaid abortion rights in this country; conservatives are not disposed to letting any issue they believe in or profit from just die on its own accord. They will, through hook or crook, bitch and moan that transsexuals are invaders against women/sports until they can take it up to the conservative-majority supreme court. In fact, expect a case to be forthcoming (maybe Ms. Gains as plantiff willing to detail how she has been 'harmed.').
They were not.
She accused him of saying trans kids were dangerous.. which he never said... so she could dismiss his actual question (speaking of straw men).
She attacked the man who asked her about those dangers, which is worse.
And it's not complicated.
If you are trans, you should play in the open division with the men. See how non-complicated that is? Easy-peasy. If you're not good enough to make the team in the open division... you're not alone ... neither are 90+% of men.
The only thing that's complicated here is trying to explain why reality somehow doesn't exist anymore because it's inconvenient for a few people's feelings.
You definitely tried to make the point that men playing against women is no more dangerous than women playing against women.
There is zero rationale for letting men play women's sports. There is also zero rationale for letting women on steriods play women's sports. Luckily, we have men's sports, and there is no rule against women playing.
That's because they are. Just like you would be. Or just like I would be. We have no business playing women's sports. We have men's sports. See how easy this is?
She already has. And she has a point.
Quote me saying as much.
And since you can't, quit putting words in my mouth. It's dishonest.
I will tell you what I told Vic when he tried to ignore it - I've already said trans women should not be playing sports with cis women.
So who are you arguing with, Jack? You're trying to argue with me, but you have to build a straw man to do it. Either that, you argue points to which I've already repeatedly agreed.
OK.
English, Jack. That is not the same as saying
I stated that there is a risk when playing sports, no matter who the competitors are. I never said anything about the relative amounts of risk when one competitor is male and the other female. You inferred something I never implied, by choice.
[deleted]
Why do you think you have to condescend to "lecture" us in each of your comments. Simply make your case, and hold the color commentary. We're all adults here and we don't like (or intend) to be lectured to unnecessarily over scientific interests that OUGHT to stomp us - if only temporarily!
As for letting men on estrogen, play in the league with men. . . is that REALLY WHAT YOU WANT TO SUGGEST? A handicapped 'target' (easy-peasy) running on the fields of play? What will the commentary be:
'Bulls with tits' stride to win against 'Ballers'?
Why is this not stigmatizing to transsexual females (on hormone therapy)?
Play nice for a moment: Why is this not stigmatizing?
Or worse, riddle me this, what if it is possible that transfemales can teach 'ballers' something (of embarrassment) on the fields of play?
Ms. Gain is the conservative 'client' in a court of law? Is that what you are suggesting/stating?
Two points need to be introduced here, because we need to move this discussion forward:
1. Transgendered people are killed in this country and around the world, because somebody in a position of leadership sees them as small enough to be 'discounted' and fodder for political gain. Thus, they are harassed, abused, bruised and battered, and taken off the crust of this earth, for being a minority living by a different set of rules.
2. It takes less energy to just try and to simply understand what people are attempting to do when becoming transgendered in the first place. It is a 'scream' for acceptance for who they are inside.
If you actually defend the idea that men should be able to compete in women's sports simply because they have gender dysphoria, there really isn't a level of condescension deep enough.
This is a conversation that should never make it to a national debate. This is so completely obvious I can't believe it could possibly be controversial.
There aren't enough of them to form their own league. So if the choices are putting them in competition with women where they have an unfair advantage and represent potential danger ... or putting them in the men's league, then yes. Absolutely put them in the men's league.
For the same reason that kids who play up a year and lose by 30 are respected but kids who play down 3 years and win by 70 would be reviled. Honor. Courage vs cowardice. Character.
Playing against men is the opposite of stigmatizing. Playing in the women's league is stigmatizing. The desire to exploit a wholly unfair advantage even if it means an increased chance of injuring women is stigmatizing. Anyone who would seek such an advantage has no honor. They are pathetic and contemptible. They deserve nothing but scorn and derision.
Putting them in the men's league stops them from disgracing themselves.
Why would that be worse? If they win fairly, good for them. Of course, if they play with the women, we'll never know, will we?
So naturally, we should let them play sports against girls, so more people will hate them. That's a great plan.
Screaming does not mean they get to do whatever they want. Just because you believe they are vulnerable does not mean the rest of us agree to sacrifice another vulnerable group.
Nice. And let me thank you for taking the time. BTW, I respect you for leaning into this topic. I respect your your years of experience with sports.
I never intended to be a defender of sorts for trans-youth (in sports, especially). However, somebody has to 'represent' them in small part on NT and many commenter here do - and so I do my part to offer up what I can.
I question the ESTROGEN aspect of these individual's bodies and the changes this drug (and others they are required to regularly ingest (for life) makes to their bodies; elite male players can do great harm to these individuals. Moreover, elite male sports teams WILL do great damage (intentionally or unintentionally to these individuals depending on the sport!)
Scorn? Disgrace? Contempt? That is what these individuals are already receiving by virtue of people who do not want to let them 'squat' with the sex they prefer (and deserve based on their altered/transitioning bodies)!
I have two pressing questions that "demand" a response (to advance).
It strikes me that you either do not acknowledge the 'work' or do not respect the actions involved to transition from male to female (or vice versa):
1. Why do you doggedly insist that transsexual fe-males be treated as if they are simply like other men ('hard-legs' - jargon for heterosexual males) when you are fully aware these individuals are relatively softer by virtue of medical chemicals?
2. Do you assert girls and women are so similar in design/shape/size that there is never any proportional differences in who is on women's sports teams? That is, girls and women are not 'threatened' by larger, muscular, girls or women?
What OTHER restrictions should be placed on abortion?
Some folks are jealous!
Vulnerable group? "Petite," you mean? "Delicate" you mean?
Listen, I don't know quite how society is going to deal with the sports issue. For instance, male to female Olympians can compete in female competitions with suppressed testosterone levels, thus there is proof that "the world" is looking for suitable ways to make trans-individuals participants in their new sex competitions (See Olympics). As for female to male competitions - no testosterone suppression limit is set, because women need to increase their testosterone levels.
What is happening here is world sports is looking for ways to rule in transsexuals in their chosen sex sports competitions, whether than excluding them from competitions. It is a difficult problem that may eventually push women in sports to higher levels of individual achievements in order to meet the situation they now face.
From what I can see, the dilemma is on-going.
One thing is clear, simply saying: "Go away, Trans-people" or compete in reverse and unfair ways against cis-sex individuals "fully charged" is not a solution to this pervasive sports dilemma.
Because they are
I can respect your stance as "devil's advocate", so to speak. (that does not at all equate trans people with the devil, BTW. The phrase is hundreds of years old.)
I understand that. And I can see why people who have not been on the field, court or sideline might raise that question.
If you are really interested, here is a much more authoritative and comprehensive set of information than I could ever offer.
Seriously. Don't take my word for it. Read the experts.
The probability is definitely increased, yes.
And the point you raise is a microcosm of the entire transgender situation and carries over from another post of yours where you referred to "hybrid" individuals. You were more insightful than I think you may have realized. Because that's what they are. They are neither male nor female. They are in between So... to your point... they experience similar competitive disadvantages and increased probability of injury competing against men as women experience when competing against them.
The pertinent discussion then revolves around a question that has already produced heated disagreements... which group deserves protection from whom?
That is only going to be worse when they're seen to be bullying women. And that is how people see this.
I don't see how they matter in this context.
When you say transsexual "females", are we talking about men becoming women or women becoming men? Serious question. I confess I lose track of the terminology.
If we're talking about men becoming women, the article from the National Institute of Health provides more expert analysis. I will point out that the goal for these men is to get their testosterone down below 10 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L). Women average between 0.5 and 2.4. So the reduced target for those men is still somewhere between 4 and 20 times the level of most women.
Of course not. But what difference does that make? It's like trying to compare getting knocked down by a person or getting knocked down by a car.
Compared to men, obviously.
Or.... various governing organizations are giving in to political pressure to the detriment of the sports in question.
To my knowledge, nobody objects to women playing in open competitions.
I think the recent trend has been to avoid external conflict and potential litigation, and prior to now that has meant ceding to the demands of trans supporters, who have a reputation for militancy. I think that pendulum is swinging back, however.
I don't think you understand how big the gap is.
Absolutely.
I've not heard anyone say "go away". I've heard a lot of people... including nearly everyone with any actual sports experience.. say "go play with the men"....which is the appropriate reaction.
No one should be bullied, and on one should 'promote' bullying either (by showing up at fields and being jeerers or making a spectacle and 'OUTRAGE' of themselves on a field, court, or sidelines). Remember this: These transsexuals are on their various competitive lanes of play because REGULATIONS PERMIT THEM TO BE. We can know this because we have THE FULL UNDERSTANDING that were they not permitted on the field, court, and lanes a/any REFEREE could call GAME STOPPAGE. ("ILLEGAL PLAYER ON THE FIELD, COURT, OR LANES.")
I have provided a couple of INTERESTING links to this board yesterday (13) and (2.1.31 and 2.1.32) please browse them even as I do so with your links!
I meant what I wrote as it is stated. That said, it is not essential to go around calling human beings, "hybrids," because it is impersonal and does not encapsulate the essence of the whole person. I only used the term to advance a 'difficult' area of discussion by acknowledging the obvious that science is making this individual's new look, feel, and lifestyle possible.
I would not often use the word "hybrid" to break-down another human beings makeup than I would use the word, "bastard" to be impersonable to a child born out of wedlock! It's demeaning-if abused.
It goes to the complexity of where these new talented individuals should 'land' in the world, because they-we 'owe' them a place (as females/males) to properly and suitable 'outlet' their arts and abilities to this nation and the world. An outlet that is competitive for all, safe, and healthy.
The comment also goes to what it means to be "elitely" competitive when one has chemically altered and sliced various places on the body and the underlying connective flesh. 1. To take the chemicals is not something to take lightly. 2. To choose to undergo various painful surgeries to become the opposite of what one's natural make-up is-goes to state of mind/consciousness. That is, this is a real dilemma for the sporting world and not one to be dismissive (as some are) about 'straight-lines' (black and white rules of genderization).
That is a gross exaggerated bit of hyperbole. It is inflated rhetoric (for effect). Anybody struck by a car (depending on state of health beforehand) will be IMPACTED accordingly!
The reason I asked this question is to point out the competitive nature with team sports: 1. The goal is to win. 2.
As a result teams choose 'winnable' athletes from a pool of shapes, sizes, and even designs - allowable on the field, lane, or court by the rules (REFEREE CONFIRMED).
Players may not like the 'odds' stacked against them individually; they may grumble beneath their breath or outloud, but the 'play-area' is what it is.
I won't ask why that is, because I recently read that in the now "outdated" (2019) regulations of World Athletics that they placed no limits on the testosterone a trans-male (female to male) girl or woman can ingest and be allowed on the field. Though, for other reasons, I wonder about "pound for pound" but then experience with other forms of defensive abilities kick in anyway to varying degrees and damages can be mitigated, erased, or at an acceptable level.
That is looking at this politically and possibly legally. Furthermore, it suggests that one 'side' or another is prepared to FIGHT. So which side is being 'militant' when that happens? Which side is demanding that there be winners and losers in this, whether than compromise? Compromise, is something the international committees are hoping to reach with new 2021 rules about federations working this out between themselves with inclusion, diversity, and equality (for transsexual athletes being competitive athletes in their chosen sex too).
Note: Of course, transsexuals are different. They are new. Some decades back/ago this would not have been a dilemma for the sports world. Ideally, the two sports categories: Male and Female would have been sufficient. The world and science has caused a change 'event' and the political world of conservatives is "outraged." With conservatives "outrage" is a new norm-in a rapidly changing world.
There will be more of this type of scientific achievements in the future. As a society we have to be more accommodating to people and not just ideological ways of life!
It all in the implication, eh? By the way, you repeatedly mention trans-females should play in the men's leagues (because as you reason they are (altered) men) and the league is "open" to "elite" women players.
The obvious question is this: Why is it harmless (less harmful) and allowable (to you and others of your view) to have elite girls, women, and trans-female (male to female) athletes play in elite males' leagues, but you and other of your view issue a declaration of dire, dangerous, and likely causing irreparable consequences to girls and women when trans-females play in elite female leagues? The trade-off is similarly the same (in reverse).
What say you?
simply because males have an advantage over females in most sports. if a woman is transitioning to make, she will gave no advantage over males. Men transitioning to female have an advantage over women.
So. . .what does it say of elite cis-men who accept that cis-girls and cis-women and transsexual males can play against their 'eliteness' when and where they are at the least expected not to exce,l or at the worse fail categorically? How is that equalizing the fields, lanes, and courts of 'play'? Transitioning males or even fully transitioned 'males still have internal issues related to and brought about by the act of transitioning and maintaining the same.
Admit it, the conservative culture war is against trans-females, because conservatives see them as easy political 'prey.'
look i get this is a complicated subject but how hard would it be to just have males play against males, females play against females and if you are a man transitioning you play with males so as to not have an unfair advantage.
Seems easy and inclusive.
Says the MAGA conservative who does not willingly agrees to relevant changes to society that include citizens who were not 'originally' provided with life, liberty, and hopes of (wildly disproportionate) prosperity while all minorities languish, suffer, and even die in due course of time.
I could not give less than a damn that some conservatives are "locked in" to a bygone era with its depleted and abolished systems of morality, politics, and cultural 'trappings.' Science is advancing this nation and the world. Conservative 'fossils' can essentially adjust or suffer a life and legacy of loss and destitute that they have long wished and put on Others!
Spare me the rant about conservatives.
The topic is disenfranchising women and talk about transgenders in sports.
I gave you an easy solution.
I give less than a damn about some conservative's cosmetic bandage "easy solution" too.
I at least supplied a solution instead of just bitching about the problem and hoping others solve it.
Cosmetic?
Who you trying to kid?
It is a common sense solution that allows transgenders to compete at the highest levels and protects women's sports.
What part of THAT is not to your personal liking?
How much of a damn does the WA give?
The announced regulations, which come into force on March 31, prohibit athletes who have gone through what WA called “male puberty” from participating in female world rankings competitions. WA said the exclusion would apply to “male-to-female transgender athletes who have been through male puberty.”
Finally a little sanity.
Therein lies the problem. Political militancy has forced its way in and is being allowed to destroy fair play, which is the cornerstone of any sport.
I dunno. I think it has a lot of promise. First, we stop all the bickering surrounding men on estrogen telling everyone they're women or women on testosterone telling everyone that they're men.
Take Ellen/Elliot Page, for example. Ellen decided she wasn't comfortable as a female, but Elliot isn't male in any realistic sense of the word . So you have a person stuck in no-mans land (no pun intended), and in that state she will always struggle for acceptance.
He/she is some of each. So rather than try to cram a person into a box that doesn't fit and then demand that the rest of us pretend it does, why not just throw the box away?
Second, we actually open the space for people to really be non-binary. We go from 2 options to infinity. People get to be whoever they want to be without the rest of us having to change vocabulary all the time.
It's also liberating if it's not.
Well, it is what it is. I have no complaint about it. Though, it has been suggested that POLITICS (and a few or more well-timed; well-placed calls took place in the background -though I can't prove it) plays its role in this "see-sawing" and back and forth of policy establishment.
At least, they are dealing with it in a form and fashion and with an eye towards the future. That is all anybody can ask for now with this particularly complex dilemma.
Thank you for sharing this article. I continue to move through this discussion gathering a fuller orb of what is being done and said.
If you throw "the box" away - don't you throw away the citizens inside it?
I don't know what your second paragraph is trying to communicate, can you restate it (if it is important)?
Finally, I would avoid terms like "political militancy" for the time being, because it simply is not helpful to constructive discussion on the merits.
No.
He explicitly said this:
His POINT was to NOT try to cram people into a box. He is suggesting doing the EXACT opposite of what you 'think' he meant.
We don't owe that to other people, why would people with gender dysphoria be different? We don't feel like we owe short men a spot on the basketball team or skinny men a spot on the football roster.
There are 20 million girls across the world who would absolutely LOVE the chance to play college or professional soccer. A few thousand may ever get that chance. The rest will be too small, too slow, too weak, or get cut for some other reason over which they have no control. We don't think we owe them anything.
So what you're trying to do here is create a special category for trans people and say we owe them something.. when we don't owe it to anybody else. Can you see how that increases animosity toward them exponentially?
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that hormone therapy is a choice they make. This isn't something they don't control.
There is a reason athletes as young as 13 or 14 are required to undergo testing for performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). There is a reason people caught using those drugs are banned from sports and stripped of their achievements. There is a reason those people face scorn and contempt for years, if not for the rest of their lives.
The outrage here is not about the "odds being stacked". It is about cheating made legal through political bullying.
First, I did not suggest anything of what you write in your top three paragraphs. So I will respond to only the last paragraph:
These citizens are here; they're queer; and they need a remedy to their situation/dilemma in the sports world of endeavors. Saying that they have a choice to not be who they are is not a solution to the sports world QUESTION!
I honestly don't know what this is about in context of what I wrote. That said, I am running out the door, but will look into it. . . later this evening.
You have been given a perfectly good option for transgenders to participate in sports that will protect women's sports.
Why isn't that satisfactory?
i thought that was the goal?
No matter how much testosterone they take, they're still probably going to be significantly lower than male athletes. They aren't going to get taller and their skeletal structure isn't going to change. It simply becomes a question of "if you're brave enough to get out there and good enough to earn your spot, then OK."
Which side has demanded everyone else change to accommodate them, and is now pretending that a ridiculously unfair situation is a "compromise"?
I think they're just trying not to get sued. I'm not optimistic on their behalf.
It's very simple. If a woman competes in the open competitions, that's her choice. She willingly takes the competitive physical disadvantages and the increased risk of injury, as opposed to having them forced upon her.
It's not a complicated subject at all.
Women's sports are for people who were born women and are staying that way.
Everybody else plays in the open divisions.
Then help me understand your statement about what we "owe" them.
You'll notice I said that hormone therapy is their choice. Because it is.
Not to those of us who can see clearly.
Of course what you suggest is the best course to include everyone and protect women's sports.
Why that isn't abundantly clear to all is beyond comprehension.
Means far right wing fascism.
Most abortions are spontaneous which makes god an abortionist.
So now you do believe in God?
... not yours.
Ok.
What God does he believe in then?
Well, so far, its a back and forth on the world stage. But, the Elite Athletes have not song yet.
More for another day, I guess.
You're not a boy who can't stop thinking about being a girl or a girl who can't stop thinking about being a boy. But, I digress. Therefore, we can start winding this discussion down now.
Very interesting. It, the linked article you provided, answers a great many 'secreted" questions I had but could not quite spell out in my comments. I want to share this from the page:
Well, all matters being equal, I accept these conclusions. I don't know what transfemales athletes will do going forward-but, that is not my concern. They will have to await more data confiming their narrowing of their testosterone numbers downward, or do as the World Athletics panel suggests: Something on the range of lowering their testosterone before puberty onset.
Again, all things being equal, Great find!
No he wasn't!
[deleted]
What of the repeated accusation that I falsely accused her of not saying something?
She repeated it over and over. I stated right away that even though I haden't seen it, that I'm glad she stood up.
The reason that I have returned here is because you say you don't remember. So here is your chance to go back and read the thread.
Start reading at 9.1.11
Those were your words.
Hmm, that was a reply on a thread where you were participating, but you didn't see it?
So, your accusation was undeniably false. You really should check your facts before making such false statements.
I told the truth. There was no need for you to act like that as I pointed out in Post 9.1.11 where I accepted what you said.
You obviously did not. I gave the links to prove it.
Moreover, this statement
was made after you grudgingly accepted my assertion that I had spoken out against trans women in women's sports, and continued to accuse others of not having done the same, when they had. When you were called out by those women for your false sweeping generalization, you did a 180 and started insisting that it was true, again. Once you knew and admitted that it wasn't true, to again insist that it was - well, that's not a good look, Vic.
I*'m not here to argue with you or your friends. I want management to look back at what was "forgotten."
You make false statements about me and my friends. Don't expect to not receive a rebuttal to correct those false statements, especially when you intentionally double down on them.
Truth!!
MOM: "And, if you keep this up; wait untill your dad gets home! He will pack your bags and send you far, far, away (to the big city)!"
[deleted]
This is an EXAMPLE of a worldwide COMMUNITY working to deal with this trans-athlete sports dilemma:
SPECIAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTRICTED EVENTS AT INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS
2.1 The special eligibility requirements set out in clause 2.3 , below, apply only to participation by a Relevant Athlete in the female classification in a Restricted Event at an International
Competition. They do not apply to any other athletes, or to any other events, or to any other
2.2 For these purposes:
(a) A Relevant Athlete is an athlete who meets each of the following three criteria:
(i) she has one of the following DSDs [ D ifferences of S ex D evelopment]:
(A) 5α‐reductase type 2 deficiency;
(B) partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS);
(C) 17β‐hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 3 (17β‐ HSD3) deficiency;
(D) congenital adrenal hyperplasia;
(E) 3β‐hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency;
(F) ovotesticular DSD; or
(G) any other genetic disorder involving disordered gonadal steroidogenesis; and
(ii) as a result, she has circulating testosterone levels in blood of five (5) nmol/L or
above; and
(iii) she has sufficient androgen sensitivity for those levels of testosterone to have a material androgenising effect.
(b) Restricted Events are 400m races, 400m hurdles races, 800m races, 1500m races, one
mile races, and all other Track Events over distances between 400m and one mile
(inclusive), whether run alone or as part of a relay event or a Combined Event.
2.3 To be eligible to compete in the female classification in a Restricted Event at an International
Competition, or to set a World Record in a competition that is not an International Competition,
a Relevant Athlete must meet each of the following conditions (the Eligibility Conditions):
(a) she must be recognised at law either as female or as intersex (or equivalent);
(b) she must reduce her blood testosterone level to below five (5) nmol/L for a continuous period of at least six months (e.g., by use of hormonal contraceptives); and
(c) thereafter she must maintain her blood testosterone level below five (5) nmol/L continuously (i.e., whether she is in competition or out of competition) for so long as she
wishes to maintain eligibility to compete in the female classification in Restricted Events at International Competitions (or to set a World Record in a Restricted Event at a
competition that is not an International Competition).
2.4 For the avoidance of doubt, there are no other special conditions that a Relevant Athlete must
(Pages 4 - 5) link to PDF on site .
Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification
(Athletes with D ifferences of S ex D evelopment) [ DSD ]
(Version 1.1, published on 23 April 2018, coming into effect as from 1 November 2018)
Note: This is a product of a search I initiated on the fly.
Your source is from 2018. I guess you missed in March 2023 where World Athletics Council, the governing body for international track and field, will bar transgender women athletes from elite competitions for women.
I am glad they moved to protect the sport for women.
Yes, thank you, we are all caught up now. It was a 'work in progess' kind of experience.
No. You tried to pass off old information as current information. Nice attempt to spin it.
You don't know what the "H" you are talking about, and you come here and tell me what I worked through through a "series" of comments. Read the comment section and you will see—better yet do a find on the word: "Update" on this article and see what I said. Follow that with who thanked Drinker of the Wry for the latest update (after I supplied two articles on World athletics oddly changing rules of the road for the transgendered) that you came late to offering up. Incidentally, Drinker of the Wry 'delivered' a link.
You didn't. I guess I would still be 'searching' if it was up to you.
In comment 13 at the very bottom I wrote this:
Note: This is a product of a search I initiated on the fly. (Regarding the 2018 World Athletes decision.)
I know you tried to pass 5 year old information off as current. Now you have your panties in a wad because you were called out pushing misinformation. And it only took a quick google search and paying attention to CURRENT events.
Exhibit 2:
Please refrain from talking about my panties and any 'wad' that might be in it, thank you very much! Especially when you are as wrong as a door with two keys inserted to open one lock!
Read it and. . . whatever.
This thread? I mentioned nothing about this "thread" being the link area for 9.1.111 . So you are mistaken. It's okay to be wrong. . .and humble to accept correction. Do not compound it.
Eureka! The link is there in your comment to NPR and for that correction of my inability to see it there, I thank you! Otherwise. . . it is what it is.
How does that change ANYTHING I said in 13.1.5? Oh, it doesn't. I don't care what Drinker poted in 9. I responded to 13. [deleted]
It is clear to me that you did not bother to read the comments up and down the line. You should CARE that a 'world' of discussion has taken place across many days.
And one more thing, I wouldn't give YOU the satisfaction of my embarrassment even if was real. Here it is not real in any shape, form, or fashion.
This is plain and pathetic trolling.
You get called out and to deflect from it I'm the troll? Go cry somewhere else.
Actually, I agree with CB. If you had been paying attention you would have known that CB had received that information in one of the more civil conversations on here. [Deleted]
Thank you, Thomas.