Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

1)  Rex, Fuck Texas.

2) Pics or GTFO (would)

3) This should be a sport by sport, individual by individual decision and goddammit it shouldn't be publicized and politicized.  There is decent science on whether there is a big advantage 

That's pretty much where it currently stands. Most policies involve interviews and some level of medical documentation that the individual has genuinely transitioned. Some policies still require testosterone and other testing but I think the trend is going away from that because it isn't really making a difference and hasn't justified the intrusiveness. If a transgendered woman were to start utterly dominating, especially in an individual sport, my guess is that these committees would meet and discuss but it just hasn't become an issue. As most on here have said, this affects less than 1% of competitive athletes nationwide, and within that group, there has been maybe a handful of examples of a transgender woman winning competitions, none of which were utter domination. Or as 52-80 would say "nO SoLuTiOnS HaVe bEeN CoNsIdErEd oR DiScUsSeD AnD I Am cOnCeRn."

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

To my knowledge, outside of a few weight lifters, Lia Thomas is the only trans athlete competing at a world class female level. Is one outlier across all women’s sports a reason to deny girls and young women the opportunity to enjoy a normal part of growing up that statistically decreases rates of depression and suicide (a huge problem in this population, even in girls with strong family and social group support), increases self esteem and academic performance, and can help them get higher education paid for? IMHO it is not

This is an emotionally-loaded non-sequitur. How does one thing connect to girls from being denied access to sports? There is neither a ban on girls (cis or trans) from playing sports, nor is there much care about how they're mixed at that age. I'm not accusing you of doing it, but this guilt trip thing is a common occurrence with this topic.

At the elite level, a trans female is free to compete in the group coincident with their birth gender.

*Is the argument that it is unfair to them athletically e.g. they cant win? We're told (gender-agnostic) physical differences is already the status quo anyway, so is it any more unfair for a transitioned female to be uncompetitive vs an elite male than it is for any cis male to be uncompetitive against a D1 athlete?

*Is the argument that it is unfair to them morally/socially, i.e. they genuine do not identify in any way as male and dont want to be associated with that group? Believe it or not, I sympathize with this one. One, the organization and the other competitors have the right to determine. Two, what then is the criteria with which you determine genuine? Surgery? Hormones? Peer recognition? Because none of those seem as pragmatic as the default rule, and noone has proposed anything better.

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

At the elite level, a trans female is free to compete in the group coincident with their birth gender.

So if at birth I declare my male child's gender as "girl" then that child plays girls' sports forever?

Gender does not equal sex. If you're going to try to use correct terminology then try to get the most basic one correct. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
5 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

when the whole purpose of having women's sports in the first place was to give them an exclusivity because of the acknowledgement that it would not be a fair competition to introduce men into the equation.

It's been a long road, but I've pretty sincerely come to believe this was a mistake in the first place. It's easy to see why it was considered the right move at the time, but in hindsight, I think skill tiers would have been better. You would basically compete at the highest level that you could.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

As this is now a CR thread: the party of criminals and freaks has whipped this into a wedge issue. Three years ago, less than 30% of the country were concerned about this issue. That number has more than doubled since.

This is the crux of the entire thing. The only reason we're talking about this is that a subset of politicians figured out they could use this to their advantage by convincing everyone that this is widespread and only going to get worse as liberals try to turn more of their kids trans, gay, and non-binary. And they're trying to "solve" it by bringing the weight of the government down on an already maligned and ostracized community. Super cool of them.

I'm sure there are people arguing in principle and good faith that respectful changes need to be made in the name of fairness; however, the powerful voices on their "side" only care about keeping the outrage train going and seeking solutions for the people who compulsively start nodding whenever someone says, "there are only two genders!" 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

This is an emotionally-loaded non-sequitur

You’re going to have to walk me through how my post is a non sequitur. Everything I posted directly addresses your post

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

She plays on a travel team all over the country. My daughters are very long and fast and springy. Appreciate your presumptions. You should type longer posts. 

How many trans athletes has she played against?

Posted
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

You’re going to have to walk me through how my post is a non sequitur. Everything I posted directly addresses your post

 

I don't see how anything you wrote, or anybody wrote, suggests in anyway that results in young girls being denied to playing sports....and all the other baggage accompanying that.

Did anyone propose banning young trans people from playing in any sports altogether? Or creating a 3rd dalit class to which theyre relegated? Explain it to me like I'm Brent Venables.

Posted
5 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

 

I feel like it's become a litmus test issue for which tribe we belong in, whether we want it to or not. 

I feel like I'm inherently accused of being transphobic if I don't believe transgender women should be competing in women's sports. I guess if that's part of the definition, then I am. 

I like your point about men being the open competition. If a woman is able to compete equally with men then by all means, she should be able to do so. I don't think the problem is as much about whether she's permitted to. It's about she's not able to compete athletically with the men, so there's a separate category created for women so there can be a more competitive footing among their peers.

In theory the idea of a more nuanced categorization that isn't completely binary can have some appeal, but in practice it becomes too subjective and people get into arguments about what subjective measurement is the ideal. It's simpler to say if you're born a woman you can compete against other women. If you're not, then you're not. Absolutely there are plenty of transgender women who will not dominate their biological counterparts in athletic endeavors, but all it takes is one, unfortunately, for the whole thing to feel unfair for people who were women at birth. 

To me it feels unfair for transgender women not to be able to participate in sports when that's such an important part of our existence. But it's also unfair in my opinion for women to compete against transgender women, when the whole purpose of having women's sports in the first place was to give them an exclusivity because of the acknowledgement that it would not be a fair competition to introduce men into the equation. It's my belief if you break the seal and say it's okay for transgender women to compete under certain circumstances it can be difficult to actually argue that arbitrary line, whereas if you make the line whether someone is born as a woman or not, the line seems as clear cut as it's going to get. 

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with having this feeling or opinion. We have arguments about all kinds of rules in sports, and this would just be one more. And it would be one more that, statistically, affects almost nobody. So, the reason folks who are adamant about this issue are called bigoted is not because they express an opinion like the above, it is because it very clearly is a pretext to punish a class of people they hate. I haven't seen you arguing for government mandates and calling out the transgendered as pedophiles and child molesters. If you're not trying to wage a political war on this simple sport rule making issue, then you aren't the problem. You if you don't think that passing laws limiting the participation of transgendered individuals in sports is one of the most important issues this election season, then you aren't whom the accusations of bigotry are aimed at. 

4 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Everything can be construed as arbitrary. You can argue an Under-18 sports league is arbitrary because what's the real difference between that and 17.5y/18.5y weeks besides a round number. My argument its a convenient boundary to split human population. Most of the world establishes 18 as the legal age of majority separating adults vs minors.  Therefore its less arbitrary.

Gender is an ultra convenient boundary to split human population. Its a world recognized distinction within human population, separating them by half!  It's very much less arbitrary.

Don't tar that as sexism, like age brackets isn't ageism.  Neither age or gender grouping in sports is done out of spite.

You talk around the periphery of the issue. You're clear you don't like people who push the issue. But you're not clear about your own view of the issue itself: is gender segregation in elite competition a good thing?

You kinda admit coyly that yes, its a good thing, but simply it shouldnt be determind by government. Is that the right read?

 

I've not been coy at all. I think allowing more people to compete is generally a good thing. But, like you, I don't believe the government should be involved in rule making for sports bodies. Especially not for an issue that will impact only a fraction of a percent of the population in any meaningful way. Unlike you, I recognize the push for those laws for what it is: a pretext for bigotry and hatred. 

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

that i agree on.  its up to each organization to decide whats appropriate for their sport, subject to the pressure of their participants and customers. likewise govt shouldnt be involved in the opposite direction.

what i dont agree with -- and people tend to gloss over this part directly to their own moral conclusion -- is if people feign as if gender is irrelevant in sports..

No one in this thread has claimed sex is irrelevant in sports. I specifically addressed how important hormone differences are in determining physical attributes and you laughed it off as impossible to address because cycling has an issue with doping. 

43 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Correct. Do you not see Dahobbs and Beau Vine and Nivek and many others immediately take my comment and turn it into an abortion rant?

Your comment was about being glad to be living in a state where the laws protects your daughters. I just pointed the utter hypocrisy of being glad about a law that will "protect" them from an issue as rare as being struck by lightning while in exchange exposing them to health risk that every woman faces. The fact that you don't see that both sets of laws for what they are--bigoted laws designed to control and minimize certain class of citizens--is completely on you.  

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

I don't see how anything you wrote, or anybody wrote, suggests in anyway that results in young girls being denied to playing sports....and all the other baggage accompanying that

I can’t help you if you are stupid and or illiterate. I’m sorry

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
9 minutes ago, G650 said:

It's been a long road, but I've pretty sincerely come to believe this was a mistake in the first place. It's easy to see why it was considered the right move at the time, but in hindsight, I think skill tiers would have been better. You would basically compete at the highest level that you could.

In which sport would the highest level be majority woman, or ever have a woman at its peak?

Posted
13 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

At the elite level, a trans female is free to compete in the group coincident with their birth gender.

Cool.

So, I have an athlete over here who was born with a vagina.  She has to compete as a female.

WHOOPS....turns out she has a condition known as being intersex.  So, maybe she has XY chromosomes (one possible result of being intersex).  Or, maybe she has very high testosterone levels (another possible result of being intersex).  So.....what is her "birth gender?"

Everyone who is so dismissive and functionally says "just check and see if she was born with a dick" isn't actually interested in addressing the issues that might give an athlete an unfair competitive advantage.  Instead, it's all performative rah-rah my political team bullshit.

Again, this wasn't an important issue a few years ago.  Now, it is THE MOST IMPORTANT CRISIS OF OUR TIME, AND WE NEED TO ELECT A PRESIDENT AND SENATOR WHO WILL PROTECT GIRLS!  You're being played.  Like you always are.  And apparently, you like it.  Dance, monkey, dance.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The Texas Constitution still says I, an atheist, can never hold public office in this state. One way or another, any of us can easily become a member of some out-group, which is why we should all fight for everyone else's rights.

I responded broadly, failure to respond to you directly isn’t the indictment you think it is. 
 

btw that Texas constitutional provision is per se unenforceable and unconstitutional. I’d be thrilled to have anti trans legislation on the books any law they want if it was settled law it’s unconstitutional.  

Posted (edited)

Since everyone else is giving their opinion, I'll go ahead and state that I currently support the Open and Female sports division structure in a perfect world. There will still be issues defining requirements for the female division because biological sex isn't black and white like some people want to believe, and it will still feel unfair to some people. It's just that right now I think it's the best solution. Trans girls and boys would be eligible for the open division. The fact that they wouldn't be as competitive there doesn't sway me because they'd be like the million cisgender males who get cut from teams during tryouts every year. 

What does sway me is that people are assholes and trans people would be even more ridiculed than they are now, so it's not a perfect world and the whole situation is shitty, the shittiest part being the imbeciles who don't actually give a shit but are told it's a crisis by idiots on TV.

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, G650 said:

It's been a long road, but I've pretty sincerely come to believe this was a mistake in the first place. It's easy to see why it was considered the right move at the time, but in hindsight, I think skill tiers would have been better. You would basically compete at the highest level that you could.

No. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

In which sport would the highest level be majority woman, or ever have a woman at its peak?

What part of my post indicated that I thought there would be one

Posted
1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

As this is now a CR thread: the party of criminals and freaks has whipped this into a wedge issue. Three years ago, less than 30% of the country was concerned about this issue. That number has more than doubled since.

Yep. I'd like to get to a common sense agreement using certain parameters that allow transgender athletes the ability to play the sports fairly -- or as fairly as possible -- with their peers. How you define that, I don't really know. But this is an issue? In a country with 350 million people, how many examples are there of this? Less than 100?

This country has real fucking problems. News flash: This doesn't crack the top 1000.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
8 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

we need to just hurry up and embrace the sci-fi world and have all sports be co-ed. if you can make the grade, it doesn't matter what is between your legs. 

IMG_2892.webp.9046e9d3332fe750d1d35a79578142a5.webp

  • Like 2
  • Drool 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Explain it to me like I'm Brent Venables.

You still wouldn’t understand. Venables is a Nobel laureate compared to you. 

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted

She’s not even the best player on the team lol

Some of the teams who are forfeiting played against this same person LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR BEFORE AND WON.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Pancho said:

She’s not even the best player on the team lol

Some of the teams who are forfeiting played against this same person LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR BEFORE AND WON.

In case anyone needed any more proof that the forfeits are nothing more than political theatrics. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Yep. I'd like to get to a common sense agreement using certain parameters that allow transgender athletes the ability to play the sports fairly -- or as fairly as possible -- with their peers. How you define that, I don't really know. But this is an issue? In a country with 350 million people, how many examples are there of this? Less than 100?

This country has real fucking problems. News flash: This doesn't crack the top 1000.

Fucking....THIS.

Any issue/problem, even a small one, deserves a fair solution.

None of the dialogue about it is driven by that desire.  None.  Zero.  Sure, what athletic governing bodies are trying is driven by that goal, but none of the "ZOMG we HAFTA DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE!" crowd acknowledge or accept that.

And the amount of energy and attention this is getting, in relation to how big an issue it actually is?  Shit, it would make about as much sense to shut down the entire country to protect against bee stings (which actually KILL 50-100 people a year).  Wouldn't you agree that something that KILLS 50-100 people a year is more important than something that tilts perhaps a handful of amateur athletic competitions each year?  WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE BEE STINGS??????

Stupid. Pure manipulation of the rubes, who are so feverishly dancing the music played for them they can't see how foolish they look.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
7 minutes ago, troph said:

I responded broadly, failure to respond to you directly isn’t the indictment you think it is. 

Did you accidentally not quote the person you're addressing with part of your post?

Quote

 

btw that Texas constitutional provision is per se unenforceable and unconstitutional. I’d be thrilled to have anti trans legislation on the books any law they want if it was settled law it’s unconstitutional.  

 

It's protected now, but like the right to transition, the abortion topic, or some other one, an asshole could always make an argument to SCOTUS that states should be able to decide whether nonbelievers can hold public office. As we've seen, precedent no longer matters with this court, and "settled law" is no longer a thing, so all our rights are at risk at any time. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Pancho said:

She’s not even the best player on the team lol

Some of the teams who are forfeiting played against this same person LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR BEFORE AND WON.

This is the main point that matters, and just proves these outrage artists to be completely full of absolute shit.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
7 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm mostly here for the coed showers

Service guarantees citizenship 

  • Haha 4
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

[1] I've not been coy at all. I think allowing more people to compete is generally a good thing. But, like you, I don't believe the government should be involved in rule making for sports bodies. Especially not for an issue that will impact only a fraction of a percent of the population in any meaningful way. Unlike you, I recognize the push for those laws for what it is: a pretext for bigotry and hatred.

[2] No one in this thread has claimed sex is irrelevant in sports. I specifically addressed how important hormone differences are in determining physical attributes and you laughed it off as impossible to address because cycling has an issue with doping.

1. We're a closed circle here. We can talk up our individual beliefs without the red herring of the politicians and other hateful bigots. (If it's me/others you believe are bigots, say so. I've been called worse on this site).

2. Page #2 "there is an undercurrent in many of these discussions that men are by general rule inherently better than women. but the reality is that concept is actually the exception" , spawning lots of further anecdotes of exceptional woman, doing nothing to disprove the undeniable fact that men are clearly better at women in sports in aggregate.  And hence the foundation of the need for segregation in the first place.  If someone doesn't agree on that, it's really useless to go further downstream.

My laughing off was the unpracticality of measuring hormones to determine grouping for sports competition, as opposed to gender.

Posted
16 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

In which sport would the highest level be majority woman, or ever have a woman at its peak?

This, in the context of the post to which you responded, is a non sequitur

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Some of the teams who are forfeiting played against this same person LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR BEFORE AND WON.

But Slorch was just posting current events!!!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So if at birth I declare my male child's gender as "girl" then that child plays girls' sports forever?

Gender does not equal sex. If you're going to try to use correct terminology then try to get the most basic one correct. 

Pedantry doesnt make a good substitute for an actual point.

I dont know which hospital you went to, but the doctors knew the gender before my child was born, there was no declaration needed after delivery.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This, in the context of the post to which you responded, is a non sequitur

It's germane in that it proves the reason to use gender segregation -- otherwise there would be no female winners.

Now would you explain who is floating the idea of blocking young girls from playing sports? Are they in the room with us now?

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Pedantry doesnt make a good substitute for an actual point.

I dont know which hospital you went to, but the doctors knew the gender before my child was born, there was no declaration needed after delivery.

It's not pedantry. You are saying gender when you should be saying sex. People's gender not matching their birth sex is the entire reason this topic exists in case you haven't figured that out yet, and it seems like you may not have. 

The doctor can tell you a baby's apparent biological sex, they cannot tell you the child's gender. Words have meaning. 

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
24 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I can’t help you if you are stupid and or illiterate. I’m sorry

I'm impressed it took so long for the ad hominem. Did you improve your self-restraint, or just feel like you got cornered?

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

It's germane in that it proves the reason to use gender segregation -- otherwise there would be no female winners.

Now would you explain who is floating the idea of blocking young girls from playing sports? Are they in the room with us now?

Texas

Florida

 

Maybe you are trying to quibble about the qualifier of “young” but these rules affect jr high and freshmen which as a father of daughters I absolutely consider young.
 

Or perhaps you think they should all play boys sports. If so go fuck yourself
 

The mom in the Florida story lost her job for signing a form for her jr high daughter to play sports, and now the family is having to move  to check out the posts in the LGBTQ thread about it  absolutely sickening  

 

12 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Pedantry doesnt make a good substitute for an actual point.

I dont know which hospital you went to, but the doctors knew the gender before my child was born, there was no declaration needed after delivery.

They knew the sex. Are you just trolling at this point?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

We're a closed circle here. We can talk up our individual beliefs without the red herring of the politicians and other hateful bigots.

It's not a red herring for the community that has to live through the unnecessary harassment of being made a political punching bag. The ONLY reason this thread exists is because of dipshit politicians stoking the fears of their easily-angered (and, yes, bigoted) base.

Yes, ostensibly, we all realize that we're just a bunch of assholes arguing pointlessly on the internet, and we can hold our own opinions that shouldn't be lumped into the extreme perspective. The problem is, on this issue, the extreme platform is the one creating the narrative and passing legislation, thus further endangering and isolating an already vulnerable community.

It's like gun control. Most are in favor of reasonable laws, but then many of those same people go out and vote for politicians proudly and openly advertising that they'll make zero attempt whatsoever to find a compromise. So it's hard to care what your nuanced internet opinion is anymore.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Pedantry doesnt make a good substitute for an actual point.

I dont know which hospital you went to, but the doctors knew the gender before my child was born, there was no declaration needed after delivery.

 

Gender and sex are two different things. The doctor knew your child’s sex before you child was born.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I'm impressed it took so long for the ad hominem. Did you improve your self-restraint, or just feel like you got cornered?

Accurate description is not ad hominem. Just read your posts

Edited by Sawbonz
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

 

17 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

This is the main point that matters, and just proves these outrage artists to be completely full of absolute shit.

Ehhh, I think they are wrong but this is not the main point, arguing that she is not the best player so it should be allowed is dumb. 

If you are against her playing, you don’t care if she is the best player or worst player. You are against it all the time and would not wait for it to be a dominate player.

Posted
2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Now would you explain who is floating the idea of blocking young girls from playing sports?

I’d argue that people who want to ban trans athletes are doing just that.

You say your children’s gender was known prior to birth. Imagine that one child was identified as male, but, from the get go that child insisted they were a girl child. Consistently and insistently. The facts show that refusing to acknowledge the child’s gender identity will cause trauma and consign your kid into the most at risk population in human demographics. The facts also show that medical intervention for trans humans is, perhaps, the least regretted major life decision humans make. Other people refusing to acknowledge your child as female is likely the single most damaging facet to the outcome of medical intervention.

So, if sport is more important than life, keep on beating your drum.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Today I learned someone is happy because their daughters are safer in Texas.  Wow

On second thought, I’m positive parents in Jonestown thought their daughters were safer there than anywhere else on earth.  Also, Warren Jeffs clan was a-ok as well.  People are morons, shocking stuff.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

Gender and sex are two different things. The doctor knew your child’s sex before you child was born.

And sometimes they're wrong about knowing the sex too

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
41 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

In which sport would the highest level be majority woman, or ever have a woman at its peak?

Drawing weird message board incels and transphobes offsides, apparently.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...