Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Like Mike Pence showing up at a Colts game just so he could storm out when athletes knelt during the national anthem. 

Ah, Mike Pence.  What a legend.  Has anyone pried the leopard off his face yet?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
53 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

You are correct actually. The way I wrote that implied there exists a class of intentional cheaters. 

I made the distinction to put the focus on the meaningful group - the ones I sympathize for. The point I was leading to was in the paragraph that followed: who has a set of fair and pragmatic rules? without one, my default inclination is to stick to the birth cohort. 

In truly gray zone, like with dismorphism, if we cant come up with a sensible rule, is it wrong to weight that 1 person wishes against all of their competitors? If its the discomfort of 1 person against 2 female competitors…or 5… or 10? thats essentially democracy isnt it. 

 

41 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I get it. Can't possibly make everybody happy. I'm just skeptical of those 2 or 5 or 10's actual discomfort in truly gray area cases. Will the issue be them or their parents?

It's also misleading to break it down as the discomfort of 1 vs some other number. In truth, the level of discomfort isn't even. The one will experience discomfort 100% of the time. The 2 or 5 or 10 will only experience discomfort (if they do at all) some small fraction of a percent of their total time in athletics.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't want to be politically incorrect, but maybe the Mormons could try not being so fucking weird.

Mormon leadership is aggressively going the wrong direction and it's one of the big reasons you are seeing this push come from Mormon heavy states, such as Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. 

A new policy further eroding the civil rights and basic dignity of transgender members was just passed down at the end of August. It's fucking disgusting. 

https://apnews.com/general-news-cae38cf6254442ffb4a608b4a8fcf334

Quote

Mormon Church Broadens Restrictions for Transgender Members

The new guidance prohibits those pursuing gender transition from working with children, and bans baptism for those who have transitioned both medically and socially.

Aug. 27, 2024

The world headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Salt Lake City.George Frey/Getty Images

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expanded its restrictions on transgender members, issuing new guidance that includes prohibiting people who pursue transition from working with children.

The guidance, part of a sweeping update last week to the church’s General Handbook, a set of instructions and policies for leaders and members, also newly bars people from being baptized even if they have transitioned only socially, by changing their appearance, name or pronouns.

“Church leaders counsel against pursuing surgical, medical, or social transition away from one’s biological sex at birth,” the handbook states.

The changes drew condemnation from transgender Latter-day Saints and their supporters.

A longtime support group for current and former L.G.B.T.Q. church members, Leaders of Affirmation, said in a statement that before the latest restrictions transgender members of the church “could expect their gender identities to be respected through the use of their chosen names, to participate in church meetings aligning with their gender identities, and to have some opportunities to be called to serve within the Church.”

They added, “We hope that God will yet reveal better for our transgender siblings.”

A spokesman for the church, Doug Anderson, said the updates “seek to help Latter-day Saints follow Jesus Christ’s example of ministering with love, patience and respect.”

The new policies tighten rules introduced in 2020 that restricted volunteer opportunities and access to the temple.

At the time, church leaders explained that they had added the policies because “we’ve had an increase in questions coming from bishops and stake presidents saying, ‘What can a transgender person do? What are the guidelines?’” Anthony D. Perkins, director of the department that oversees the handbook, said in 2020.

The church, which has more than 17 million members worldwide, has in the last decade tried to refine its approach to gay and lesbian members, same-sex couples, and transgender people. In 2015, leaders called same-sex married couples “apostates” and restricted their children from blessings and baptisms. Four years later, they reversed the restrictions on rituals for children, and rolled back the “apostate” label.

Before same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2015, the church supported California Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state. In recent years, leaders have walked back that approach, carving out some limited acceptance for L.G.B.T.Q. people in the church and in society, though it continues to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The handbook defines “gender” as “biological sex at birth” and calls it “an essential characteristic in Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness.”

It acknowledges that some people experience a dissonance between their biological sex and their “inner sense of gender,” and states that the church takes no position on the cause of those feelings.

The handbook also commends members who have taken steps to transition but then “transition back to to their biological sex at birth,” stating that they may enjoy the full privileges of membership in the church.

Ruth Graham is a national reporter, based in Dallas, covering religion, faith and values for The Times. More about Ruth Graham

 

It's going to get worse too. The current President/Prophet just turned 100. The next guy in the line of succession was President of BYU while they were doing electroshock conversion therapy research on gay students. 

 

 

 

  • Rage+1 3
Posted (edited)

I've been deathly ill all week so I'm just catching up on all things Surly, and whoo boy is this thread a doozy.

Just finished the thread and here's my hot take...

Y'all can bash @52-80, but from my unbiased perspective he's been one of the more reasonable posters in this thread... along with @troph.  Although, I think her proximity to the issue clouds her at times.

I think we can all agree that nobody gives a shit about rec sports, so let's put a pin in that one.  

That leaves competitive level sports.  So, the question is, when does rec sports become competitive?  IE what it the definition of competitive level sports?  Is it simply based on average talent level? Age? Or does sponsorship money, or the potential for sponsorship money (NIL, pro sports, etc.) need to be present?

Edited by DixonHur
Posted
14 minutes ago, Pods said:

Mormon leadership is aggressively going the wrong direction and it's one of the big reasons you are seeing this push come from Mormon heavy states, such as Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. 

A new policy further eroding the civil rights and basic dignity of transgender members was just passed down at the end of August. It's fucking disgusting. 

https://apnews.com/general-news-cae38cf6254442ffb4a608b4a8fcf334

 

It's going to get worse too. The current President/Prophet just turned 100. The next guy in the line of succession was President of BYU while they were doing electroshock conversion therapy research on gay students. 

 

 

 

Accidentally posted the wrong link to the section I quoted. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/27/us/mormon-church-transgender.html

Posted
6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

 

That leaves competitive level sports.  So, the question is, when does rec sports become competitive?  IE what it the definition of competitive level sports?  Is it simply based on average talent level? Age? Or does sponsorship money, or the potential for sponsorship money (NIL, pro sports, etc.) need to be present?

Sports "inequality" is a hot topic no matter the level.   Starting at Kindergarten redshirts, to high school "transfers" or Allen refusing to split up their high schools, all the way to Tampa Rays fans bitching about the Yankees payroll and lack of a real salary cap in MLB.  Or 90% of CFB teams bitching about Texas NIL.   That's my point.  It's a successful argument because everyone already has hot sports opinions (literally) about inequity in sports.  So throw transgender and the mere thought of a "male" dropping 30 and 15 in a girls high school playoff game (regardless of whether it is actually happening or not, as it isn't) and it's a winner to fire people up that aren't going to research whether or not there is an actual issue.

Posted
1 minute ago, Skipper said:

it's a winner to fire people up that aren't going to research whether or not there is an actual issue.

TBH, if I may, I’m more worked up about the litter boxes in classrooms.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not an issue, as evidenced by the fact that the one time it occurs it causes national headlines and prompts a six-page (and counting) thread on the Surl.

If it were an issue, then it would be so commonplace that it wouldn't even earn your (or any other poster's) notice.  You'd be like "pfft--another one.  That's some bullshit."

Kind of like how Americans are about school shootings now.  That's an issue.  And Americans' callousness and non-recognition of when another one happens tells you just how big an issue it is.

This, however, is completely fabricated.

What a man and a gun do in the privacy of a public school is very different and much less harmful to the handful of young ladies who play sports with a transgendered student go through.  And if it is not, that's only because I don't actually care.  /GQP

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Bevo said:

image.gif.6faa4d20b4978de9568cbbbb97344448.gif

 

What I really needed was a laugh, cry and fuck you analogy. Too much emotion to your point.

What you are saying is that we need a new reaction that transitions?  You arrogant ass.  You killed us all. 

Posted
45 minutes ago, royiv said:

TBH, if I may, I’m more worked up about the litter boxes in classrooms.

100% agree. Me too.

Once a man gets into his 40's, his focus invariably shifts to a constant awareness of where he can piss at a moment's notice. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Sports "inequality" is a hot topic no matter the level.   Starting at Kindergarten redshirts, to high school "transfers" or Allen refusing to split up their high schools, all the way to Tampa Rays fans bitching about the Yankees payroll and lack of a real salary cap in MLB.  Or 90% of CFB teams bitching about Texas NIL.   That's my point.  It's a successful argument because everyone already has hot sports opinions (literally) about inequity in sports.  So throw transgender and the mere thought of a "male" dropping 30 and 15 in a girls high school playoff game (regardless of whether it is actually happening or not, as it isn't) and it's a winner to fire people up that aren't going to research whether or not there is an actual issue.

Your post, and that of many I've read on this thread, seem to be conflating results with process.

Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

If you think that, then you're following for the same schtick. There are two distinct issues:

(1) What is a reasonable way for a sport to handle this situation

And 

(2) Why is this situation being elevated to national importance. 

I think overall this thread has had reasonable discussion on #1. 

#2 is clearly bigotry. That's all it is. It is part and parcel of claims that the gays and transgenders are molesting and grooming children. It is fear mongering designed to get idiots worked up about something that has a near 0% chance of affecting them and that quite frankly they never cared about before (women's athletics).

We can have a polite discussion about #1. But the truth about #2 should undeniable to any truly unbiased person. 

This this this.

This issue is entirely about #2.

Because if it was REALLY about #1, we'd be talking a lot more about things that have a much bigger impacts.  Bee stings, which kill 50-100 people each year.  Hell, six people die each year from vending machines falling on them.....I haven't heard of ANYONE being killed by competing against a trans athlete.  WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE PEOPLE KILLED WHILE TRYING TO GET THAT STUCK BAG OF ANDY CAPP'S HOT FRIES???"

Seriously.  It's not a good faith conversation being held for good faith reasons.  So, demanding that we start with "okay, so assuming this is a good-faith conversation about an important issue" is a non-starter.  It is an almost entirely made-up issue that is being used as a CENTRAL CAMPAIGN ISSUE by....exactly who you would expect to use it.  This conversation is in bad faith for bad faith reasons.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, troph said:

This may surprise you but I agree the forfeiture doesn’t fucking matter and no one including me would even know about it but for a known confirmed hater posting click bait here.

but make no mistake about it, the media campaign and the political strategy end game is full eradication of my people from polite society. They started with bathroom, moved to healthcare for kids, and athletic bans, but they want it all. And I’m not going to stand for that as we actively are looking for places in another state to spend at least half the year to protect my existence from the political end game here in Texas.

I need you to know that no one is more tired of these discussions than me.  I’ve spent the better part of my time on this board since 2015 advocating for my people, because I’m an advocate it’s just what I am. And in doing so I know I have gained the attention, respect, understanding and even agreement of many posters here. So I simply cannot let the haters occupy this space without speaking up. 

And thank you for doing so despite the trauma that sometimes comes with it.  I have gained a much deeper understanding of trans folk thanks to you.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
58 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

#2 is clearly bigotry. That's all it is. It is part and parcel of claims that the gays and transgenders are molesting and grooming children. It is fear mongering designed to get idiots worked up about something that has a near 0% chance of affecting them and that quite frankly they never cared about before (women's athletics).

We can have a polite discussion about #1. But the truth about #2 should undeniable to any truly unbiased person. 

If you believe this you may be as, if not more, narrow minded than those you are attempting the castigate.  You're basically telling people that they either think like you or they are bigoted.  How is that constructive to the debate?  More to the point, how does that leave any room for debate?

Believe it or not, two things can be true.  Some, maybe much, of the push back against trans women competing against cis women might be a result of bigoted thinking.  That doesn't mean all of it is.  Nor does it mean it shouldn't be discussed.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

If you think that, then you're following for the same schtick. There are two distinct issues:

(1) What is a reasonable way for a sport to handle this situation

And 

(2) Why is this situation being elevated to national importance. 

I think overall this thread has had reasonable discussion on #1. 

#2 is clearly bigotry. That's all it is. It is part and parcel of claims that the gays and transgenders are molesting and grooming children. It is fear mongering designed to get idiots worked up about something that has a near 0% chance of affecting them and that quite frankly they never cared about before (women's athletics).

We can have a polite discussion about #1. But the truth about #2 should undeniable to any truly unbiased person. 

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

This this this.

This issue is entirely about #2.

Because if it was REALLY about #1, we'd be talking a lot more about things that have a much bigger impacts.  Bee stings, which kill 50-100 people each year.  Hell, six people die each year from vending machines falling on them.....I haven't heard of ANYONE being killed by competing against a trans athlete.  WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE PEOPLE KILLED WHILE TRYING TO GET THAT STUCK BAG OF ANDY CAPP'S HOT FRIES???"

Seriously.  It's not a good faith conversation being held for good faith reasons.  So, demanding that we start with "okay, so assuming this is a good-faith conversation about an important issue" is a non-starter.  It is an almost entirely made-up issue that is being used as a CENTRAL CAMPAIGN ISSUE by....exactly who you would expect to use it.  This conversation is in bad faith for bad faith reasons.

 

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

If you believe this you may be as, if not more, narrow minded than those you are attempting the castigate.  You're basically telling people that they either think like you or they are bigoted.  How is that constructive to the debate?  More to the point, how does that leave any room for debate?

Believe it or not, two things can be true.  Some, maybe much, of the push back against trans women competing against cis women might be a result of bigoted thinking.  That doesn't mean all of it is.  Nor does it mean it shouldn't be discussed.

Just like several other issues, anyone who disagrees on this issue MUST! bE a bIgoT. Dahobbs and Brisket you guys are both smarter than this. Dixon is right. Do better. 

  • Like 1
Posted

I believe this is my first post on this thread.

I'm 58, divorced, no kids.  That this subject on a forum based on mutual interest of Longhorn football has this many replies on a college fucking volleyball issue blows my fucking mind.

image.jpeg.c942531f1add625692ec8f540b105793.jpeg

 

Outside of Olympic women's beach volleyball, I've never watched more than 30 minutes at-a-time of volleyball.  And that was the end of the Texas women's championship match last year.  I'm guessing most of the folks bitching about this unfairness fall within my give-a-shit level of women's volleyball. 

I don't understand why something that has zero effect on anyone outside of maybe 200 people in the US is a fucking thing. 

 

image.jpeg.310ee8ca3205299d7fa63c62623a4829.jpeg

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

If you believe this you may be as, if not more, narrow minded than those you are attempting the castigate.  You're basically telling people that they either think like you or they are bigoted.  How is that constructive to the debate?  More to the point, how does that leave any room for debate?

Believe it or not, two things can be true.  Some, maybe much, of the push back against trans women competing against cis women might be a result of bigoted thinking.  That doesn't mean all of it is.  Nor does it mean it shouldn't be discussed.

You're not listening. I don't have any issue with discussion of the rules. The question is why is it a national issue. When did you start feeling strongly about women's sports? Why? Did you think transgendered individuals didn't exist before? How many people do you think this affects? Do you think that sports bodies are incapable of developing rules to cover these very niche situations? Do you really think this is important enough that state and national legislation needs to be involved? 

Again, this is a national for one reason and one reason only: bigotry. That's why folks are pushing this issue. You've seen the same commercials and comments from politicians claiming that these are degenerates that are grooming children. Do you really believe all this hate is unrelated? That the same people now care strongly about fairness in women's athletics for any other reason than their hatred? Come the fuck on and grow the fuck up. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
Biological males should not be competing in women’s sports plain and simple. 
 
easiest solution is to create trans leagues. 
Transgender League...alone-boy.gif
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

 

Just like several other issues, anyone who disagrees on this issue MUST! bE a bIgoT. Dahobbs and Brisket you guys are both smarter than this. Dixon is right. Do better. 

You do better. Stop pretending it is anything else driving this conversation. 

Yes, people can feel that males shouldn't participate in female sports without being bigots. I have no issue with that discussion. But if you cant see that the burning need to push an issue on the national level that affects .0001% of the population is driven by hate, then you're either a fucking fool or a bigot. If that hurts your feelings, tough shit. It is the truth. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
I believe this is my first post on this thread.
I'm 58, divorced, no kids.  That this subject on a forum based on mutual interest of Longhorn football has this many replies on a college fucking volleyball issue blows my fucking mind.
image.jpeg.c942531f1add625692ec8f540b105793.jpeg
 
Outside of Olympic women's beach volleyball, I've never watched more than 30 minutes at-a-time of volleyball.  And that was the end of the Texas women's championship match last year.  I'm guessing most of the folks bitching about this unfairness fall within my give-a-shit level of women's volleyball. 
I don't understand why something that has zero effect on anyone outside of maybe 200 people in the US is a fucking thing. 
 
image.jpeg.310ee8ca3205299d7fa63c62623a4829.jpeg
 

Because this is exactly how the GOP dog whistles and takes people’s attention off the fact that they don’t have any policy issues other than tax cuts for the rich and sometimes blatant racism.
  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted

@Dbeasy do you truly believe this deserves to be a national issue? Do you believe there is some pressing need for laws governing who can participate in female athletics? How many people in this country do you think it affects? Do you truly not see a relationship between this effort and other efforts to demonize those the in the lbgtq community? Do you really believe claims of grooming and pedophile are driven by anything but hate? 

Again, this discussion isn't about whether makes should compete in female sports. It just isn't. If you think they shouldn't, I don't care. I don't think that means you're a bigot. But you have to see this should, at most, item #100,000 on the list of concerns of the country. You have to see that the attempts to elevate an issue that you otherwise wouldn't give a fuck about because it would have zero impact on your life or the life of anyone you know is done for nefarious purposes. Stop being fucking fooled by the hatred of others. 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

ANDY CAPP'S HOT FRIES

underrated snack

 

 

 

can we start a policy where any time @52-80 starts punching down in defense of the status quo then thread gets moved here? because that's a single circle venn diagram for threads started outside CR that are definitely CR.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
52 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

 

Just like several other issues, anyone who disagrees on this issue MUST! bE a bIgoT. Dahobbs and Brisket you guys are both smarter than this. Dixon is right. Do better. 

Then perhaps I did a poor job communicating.

My issue is not with Dixon's take on the issue.  My issue is on WHY IT IS EVEN A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION.  This "issue" is for all intents and purposes not a "thing."  It is a teeny tiney eensy weensie issue, which affects next to no one.  Seriously, vending machines killing people is objectively and empirically a much more serious issue.  So....why are we discussing this?  There is one reason, and one reason only: a faction of society that has a vested interest in creating an enemy, and in condemning all gay and trans people "DEMONIC PEDOPHILE GROOMERS WHO WANT TO MOLEST OUR DAUGHTERS AND HAVE DRAG SHOWS AND BE GIANT MEN TACKLING LITTLE TINY GIRLS ON THE FIELD BECAUSE THEY ARE SICKOS!"

It is not a good-faith topic.  If is fruit of a poisoned tree.  THAT is the fucking issue -- that this is a manufactured issue created for the purpose of ginning up hate and enmity against the weak, for political and power advantage.  THAT is fucking sick.  THAT is causing real harm.  You want a problem and issue to talk about?  There it is.

I promise you more trans kids commit suicide every fucking month than there are girls who missed out on a volleyball trophy because a trans girl was on the other team.  But none -- not one -- of the people who screams "we have to protect our kids!" gives a single shit about THOSE kids.  Why?  Well....because they're evil demonic perverts, that's why.

Sorry, I don't cotton to purposeful cruelty, which is all this issue is.  It's fucking mean, cruel, and destructive of the least among us.  That's just peak shittiness.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
11 hours 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. 

You just said glad she is in Texas which tells me that you think she doesn't have to deal with it. If she indeed does play top level club "all over the country" then you wouldn't say that. Sounds like someone is lying or at the very least doesn't understand that high school ball is irrelevant. To recruiters what you do in club is what matters. You know, against all those trans kids from those blue states that you are worried about.

Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

You work hard for your humblebrags, don’t you?  We play all over the country. In lax, we play Palm Springs, Vail, Denver and Annapolis every year. In hoops we’ve played in tournaments in Austin, Houston, all over south Dallas, OKC, C Springs, Cincy, and Vegas. In 7on7 (son), we don’t travel. Teams from all over the South come to us, and even Hawaii. Tournaments in Dallas, Austin and College Station. We won every tournament including state champ. I know a lot more about club ball in any sport than you. 

Your daughters and their offspring will still be ashamed of you after you die, because you are a bigot and an asshole, but keep on being you, Mr. 1860.  

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

You work hard for your humblebrags, don’t you?  We play all over the country. In lax, we play Palm Springs, Vail, Denver and Annapolis every year. In hoops we’ve played in tournaments in Austin, Houston, all over south Dallas, OKC, C Springs, Cincy, and Vegas. In 7on7 (son), we don’t travel. Teams from all over the South come to us, and even Hawaii. Tournaments in Dallas, Austin and College Station. We won every tournament including state champ. I know a lot more about club ball in any sport than you. 

Edit: baseball - play in ‘World Series’ every year in Florida that we win. I breed excellence. 

That's yet to be determined. Let us know when one of those excellent right wing spawns of yours signs to play somewhere. Hopefully they don't lose out to one of those scary trans kids.

Posted
39 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You're not listening. I don't have any issue with discussion of the rules. The question is why is it a national issue. When did you start feeling strongly about women's sports? Why? Did you think transgendered individuals didn't exist before? How many people do you think this affects? Do you think that sports bodies are incapable of developing rules to cover these very niche situations? Do you really think this is important enough that state and national legislation needs to be involved? 

Again, this is a national for one reason and one reason only: bigotry. That's why folks are pushing this issue. You've seen the same commercials and comments from politicians claiming that these are degenerates that are grooming children. Do you really believe all this hate is unrelated? That the same people now care strongly about fairness in women's athletics for any other reason than their hatred? Come the fuck on and grow the fuck up. 

I think calling it a "national issue" is a bit hyperbolic.  As far as I can tell, it's had more legs here than anywhere else.

But, to your questions:

  1. When did you start feeling strongly about women's sports? Why?
    • I don't I feel strongly about women's sports, nor do I think you need to.  To me, this isn't sports issue, per se, it's a boarder philosophical exercise.
  2. Did you think transgendered individuals didn't exist before?
    • I had a trans professor at UT, so yes, I was aware of the existence of trans people.  But are you suggesting that trans women were participating in HS and College athletics before say 10 years ago?
  3. How many people do you think this affects?
    • Define "affects"?  There are about 8.5 milllion HS and collegiate athletes in the US.  So, if roughly 3% of the population identifies as either trans or intersex, that's about 255k.  But there seems to be less of an issue with female to male trans, so cut that in half and call it 125k.  If you're talking about the "potential" of the US (not even gonna contemplate the world)... there are about 33 million biological males between the ages of 10 and 24, so that's just under a 1 million.
  4. Do you think that sports bodies are incapable of developing rules to cover these very niche situations?
    • No.  Lance Armstrong out front shoulda told you
  5. Do you really think this is important enough that state and national legislation needs to be involved?
    • No, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed or discussed in public.

My solution is quite simple and certainly not new.  Plato designed an entire republic on a similar concept.

Eliminate gender segregation in sport.  Qualifications would be based on something akin to a SPARQ score.

Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

I think calling it a "national issue" is a bit hyperbolic.  As far as I can tell, it's had more legs here than anywhere else.

But, to your questions:

  1. When did you start feeling strongly about women's sports? Why?
    • I don't I feel strongly about women's sports, nor do I think you need to.  To me, this isn't sports issue, per se, it's a boarder philosophical exercise.
  2. Did you think transgendered individuals didn't exist before?
    • I had a trans professor at UT, so yes, I was aware of the existence of trans people.  But are you suggesting that trans women were participating in HS and College athletics before say 10 years ago?
  3. How many people do you think this affects?
    • Define "affects"?  There are about 8.5 milllion HS and collegiate athletes in the US.  So, if roughly 3% of the population identifies as either trans or intersex, that's about 255k.  But there seems to be less of an issue with female to male trans, so cut that in half and call it 125k.  If you're talking about the "potential" of the US (not even gonna contemplate the world)... there are about 33 million biological males between the ages of 10 and 24, so that's just under a 1 million.
  4. Do you think that sports bodies are incapable of developing rules to cover these very niche situations?
    • No.  Lance Armstrong out front shoulda told you
  5. Do you really think this is important enough that state and national legislation needs to be involved?
    • No, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed or discussed in public.

My solution is quite simple and certainly not new.  Plato designed an entire republic on a similar concept.

Eliminate gender segregation in sport.  Qualifications would be based on something akin to a SPARQ score.

When did it become a national issue?  Is it a national issue? https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/politics/house-transgender-sports-bill/index.html

Quote

The House voted on Thursday to pass a GOP-led bill that would ban transgender athletes from women’s and girls’ sports at federally funded schools and educational institutions.

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/38209262/transgender-athlete-laws-state-legislation-science#:~:text=Transgender-,athlete,-laws by state

Quote

Since 2020, 23 states have passed laws restricting transgender athletes' ability to participate in school sports in accordance with their gender identity.

transgender_legislative_1.jpg&w=570&form

Gee, golly damn, would ya look at those states.

So, if it isn't a national issue, then why is it the subject of federal and state legislation?  Surely it's not worth all that attention?

Maybe it's people who don't give a good Goddamn about sports, women's sports in particular, but have another agenda?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I think calling it a "national issue" is a bit hyperbolic.  As far as I can tell, it's had more legs here than anywhere else.

But, to your questions:

  1. When did you start feeling strongly about women's sports? Why?
    • I don't I feel strongly about women's sports, nor do I think you need to.  To me, this isn't sports issue, per se, it's a boarder philosophical exercise.
  2. Did you think transgendered individuals didn't exist before?
    • I had a trans professor at UT, so yes, I was aware of the existence of trans people.  But are you suggesting that trans women were participating in HS and College athletics before say 10 years ago?
  3. How many people do you think this affects?
    • Define "affects"?  There are about 8.5 milllion HS and collegiate athletes in the US.  So, if roughly 3% of the population identifies as either trans or intersex, that's about 255k.  But there seems to be less of an issue with female to male trans, so cut that in half and call it 125k.  If you're talking about the "potential" of the US (not even gonna contemplate the world)... there are about 33 million biological males between the ages of 10 and 24, so that's just under a 1 million.
  4. Do you think that sports bodies are incapable of developing rules to cover these very niche situations?
    • No.  Lance Armstrong out front shoulda told you
  5. Do you really think this is important enough that state and national legislation needs to be involved?
    • No, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed or discussed in public.

My solution is quite simple and certainly not new.  Plato designed an entire republic on a similar concept.

Eliminate gender segregation in sport.  Qualifications would be based on something akin to a SPARQ score.

If you're not aware it has been made a national issue, then you're not paying attention. Ted Cruz is literally running his campaign around it. You've seen the commercials if you've watched any UT games this year. Have you wondered why a bunch of conservative run states have all the sudden pushed legislation on this issue? 

I get it, it doesn't affect you. You think I'm being hyperbolic. Just do a google search. Tell me what you find. And then try and convince yourself it isn't being made a national issue by those with hate in their hearts. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

When did it become a national issue?  Is it a national issue? https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/politics/house-transgender-sports-bill/index.html

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/38209262/transgender-athlete-laws-state-legislation-science#:~:text=Transgender-,athlete,-laws by state

So, if it isn't a national issue, then why is it the subject of federal and state legislation?  Surely it's not worth all that attention?

Maybe it's people who don't give a good Goddamn about sports, women's sports in particular, but have another agenda?

So it's the same level of "national issue" as Freedom Fries?  Got it.

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 4
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So it's the same level of "national issue" as Freedom Fries?  Got it.

Performative nonsense that demonizes Americans, not just Frenchmen, who deserve to be demonized.

31f

Also "freedom fries" was never the subject of legislation, much less discriminatory legislation.

This is all of a plan to give stupid people someone to hate.  And, ultimately to direct that hate at "liberals" who are willing to stand up for the downtrodden in our society.  All so the stupid people can feel better about themselves and elect people that will continue to fuck them over.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So it's the same level of "national issue" as Freedom Fries?  Got it.

That's a fucked up way to look at efforts to demonize your fellow citizens. By all means, tell @troph that the hate is no big deal. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So it's the same level of "national issue" as Freedom Fries?  Got it.

Fuck off with that. These are people's lives and rights.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

That's a fucked up way to look at efforts to demonize your fellow citizens. By all means, tell @troph that the hate is no big deal. 

So, you're saying people should stop hating other people?  I think you're on to something there.  I'm surprised no one else has thought of that in the last 500,000 years.

Does your hyperbole know no bounds?  

Just now, safe sex said:

Fuck off with that. These are people's lives and rights.

What rights and, whose lives does my suggestion trample?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That's a fucked up way to look at efforts to demonize your fellow citizens. By all means, tell @troph that the hate is no big deal. 

In some ways, the performative nonsense would be somewhat hilarious.  But there are actual victims here and in related performative nonsense that winds its way into policy.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So, you're saying people should stop hating other people?  I think you're on to something there.  I'm surprised no one else has thought of that in the last 500,000 years.

Does your hyperbole know no bounds?  

What rights and, whose lives does my suggestion trample?

You're being fatuous in a libertarian way.  

This is institutionalized hatred not for any other reason than to gain political power.  

As alluded to above, "freedom fries" doesn't have any real victims, it's just dumb.  This is dumb and has real victims.  And it's of a part with demonizing every out group they can think of that red state rednecks won't sympathize with.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted

This thread is fucking bad. Lmao. 

Did anyone watch? Haven't seen any fucking screenshots.

No one gets to talk about it in this thread anymore and it locks if people didn't watch or have a comment on the game tonight where said person who everyone and their dog wants to see play as trans-woman against girls by the morning. 

Buncha shitheads. All of you should be ashamed. None of you even watched this person who is being USED as a political pawn against her will it's disgusting. At least give her screen time. 

Fucking hawk tuah is blown up for no reason at least if you are gonna make it a big deal blow up her socials and make her a lottery winner, but no this is about hate and stupidity. 

Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

You're being fatuous in a libertarian way.  

This is institutionalized hatred not for any other reason than to gain political power.  

As alluded to above, "freedom fries" doesn't have any real victims, it's just dumb.  This is dumb and has real victims.  And it's of a part with demonizing every out group they can think of that red state rednecks won't sympathize with.

No.  I'm trying to bring some perspective.

The level of victimhood and virtue signaling some people exhibit in the CR is mind bottling.  

I've offered up what I think is a viable solution to the issue... crickets.  I make a freedom fries joke and all the sudden I'm Hitler.

But let's follow your example.  Say Congress bans trans women from participating in women's sports... not gonna happen, but let's pretend.  What's the actual result?  Honestly.  Estimate the actual damage. 

Playing sports on a HS, collegiate, or professional team is not an unalienable right.  Would it suck for some people?  Absolutely, but is that the metric we want to apply to all situations?  If anyone is disaffected than it cannot happen?

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So, you're saying people should stop hating other people?  I think you're on to something there.  I'm surprised no one else has thought of that in the last 500,000 years.

Does your hyperbole know no bounds?  

What rights and, whose lives does my suggestion trample?

I'm sorry. I thought you were discussing in earnest and ignorance. Now I see you're just a shit head. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

I'm sorry. I thought you were discussing in earnest and ignorance. Now I see you're just a shit head. 

I see you're conflating every single trans issue into sports.  Good job.

Nuanced, you are not.

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

No.  I'm trying to bring some perspective.

The level of victimhood and virtue signaling some people exhibit in the CR is mind bottling.  

I've offered up what I think is a viable solution to the issue... crickets.  I make a freedom fries joke and all the sudden I'm Hitler.

But let's follow your example.  Say Congress bans trans women from participating in women's sports... not gonna happen, but let's pretend.  What's the actual result?  Honestly.  Estimate the actual damage. 

Playing sports on a HS, collegiate, or professional team is not an unalienable right.  Would it suck for some people?  Absolutely, but is that the metric we want to apply to all situations?  If anyone is disaffected than it cannot happen?

Again, the point isn't about a ban. It is about why they are doing it. This is about power and cruelty. It is about punishing a group they don't like. That's it. You're a fuckhead for pretending otherwise. One day I hope you realized how cruel you're truly being. 

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I see you're conflating every single trans issue into sports.  Good job.

Nuanced, you are not.

You don't think their related because you're fucking blind to what is going on. And the vast majority of what I posted was specific to sports.

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

Again, the point isn't about a ban. It is about why they are doing it. This is about power and cruelty. It is about punishing a group they don't like. That's it. You're a fuckhead for pretending otherwise. One day I hope you realized how cruel you're truly being. 

Yes. The point is the ban.  

Again, two things can be true. 

But I'm glad to know that my idea of un-gendering sports and replacing the qualifications to participate with SPARQ score type criteria is about power, cruelty and punishment.

Posted
5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

No.  I'm trying to bring some perspective.

The level of victimhood and virtue signaling some people exhibit in the CR is mind bottling.  

I've offered up what I thddink is a viable solution to the issue... crickets.  I make a freedom fries joke and all the sudden I'm Hitler.

But let's follow your example.  Say Congress bans trans women from participating in women's sports... not gonna happen, but let's pretend.  What's the actual result?  Honestly.  Estimate the actual damage. 

Playing sports on a HS, collegiate, or professional team is not an unalienable right.  Would it suck for some people?  Absolutely, but is that the metric we want to apply to all situations?  If anyone is disaffected than it cannot happen?

We're not talking about the actual issue, which is the "fairness" of transgender women participating in women's sports, versus the fairness of letting people play.  That is an issue about which reasonable minds can differ to some degree.

We're talking about WHY we're talking about it.  Who made is such a big hairy deal that we're expending legislative effort at the federal and red-state level to address the issue?

Why are college teams forfeiting games to another team with a trans player that satisfies the rules the NCAA has thus far set out?

This is all about demonizing people for being who they are and generating hatred and resentment of them.

It's political, it's national, and it's being driven by one particular group.

 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, the point isn't about a ban. It is about why they are doing it. This is about power and cruelty. It is about punishing a group they don't like. That's it. You're a fuckhead for pretending otherwise. One day I hope you realized how cruel you're truly being. 

You don't think their related because you're fucking blind to what is going on. And the vast majority of what I posted was specific to sports.

I'm not even sure to the politicians it's really even about punishing them.

It's about generating a desire to punish and hate them among the electorate so that those who desire to protect them, as human beings, can be hated, too.

That there's collateral damage to the people that are targeted is pretty much irrelevant to them, as long as the prior sentence happens.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...