OT "I'm Dealing With A Few Transgender Issues" (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Status
Not open for further replies.
A few years ago we were told lesbians had an unfair athletic advantage over "real" women.
 
crandc said:
A few years ago we were told lesbians had an unfair athletic advantage over "real" women.
Click to expand...
But that didn't make any sense and nobody with any ability for abstract thought honestly believed it.

We have medical and scientific data which all backs up my stance here.
 
Phatguysrule said:
That is not the case.

I fully recognize and celebrate that there are many kinds of people, and wish all of them well.

My position is that cis-women should not be forced to compete against anything other than sis-women in athletic competition. Because none of the other kinds of people deal with close to the same physical and biological disadvantages that cis-women have to overcome to compete and remain competitive.
Click to expand...

But that's silly. I can easily name some other kinds of people with greater physical and biological disadvantages. Obese people. Old people. Uncoordinated people. Unenergetic people. Etc. etc.

I welcome and encourage all of the other kinds of people to compete in all of the other leagues.

I'm not opposed to unfair competition in general. But if we weren't interested in protecting cis-women's rights to compete amongst themselves we wouldn't have women's leagues or women's divisions in the Olympics.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the historical and current situation. However, that doesn't necessarily imply it's the right way to do things going forward.

Expecting healthy competition between sis-women and non-cis-women in all athletic competitions is simply unreasonable. And so protecting the league's ability to make that decision themselves is important to the health of women's sports.
Click to expand...

I suppose if you think that "women's sports" must be maintained in it's current form, then of course you are right.

Having an elegant routine method for a neutral medical professional to classify who qualifies to compete with cis-women would be a step toward removing the opportunity of those who would target trans athletes.
Click to expand...

Having one standard rather than many is certainly better. But no matter where you draw the line, someone is going to be just above or just below the line. Is it 'fair' that someone just below your line competes with women and someone just above the line competes with men?

If it's about competition, everything we know tells us cis-women cannot reasonably be expected to consistently compete against non-cis-women.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. There are plenty of women out there that could kick my ass. And I have a penis. There is no bright line in athletic ability between male and female in general.

barfo
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
barfo said:
But that's silly. I can easily name some other kinds of people with greater physical and biological disadvantages. Obese people. Old people. Uncoordinated people. Unenergetic people. Etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Those are disabilities, not people at the top of their physical form. None of those people are prohibited from playing if they can compete. For example, obese people can play golf or baseball just fine. And we have sports for the disabled that able bodied people aren't allowed to compete in.


Yes, that's the historical and current situation. However, that doesn't necessarily imply it's the right way to do things going forward.
Click to expand...

... I suppose if you think that "women's sports" must be maintained in it's current form, then of course you are right.
Click to expand...
I would be open to discussing other suggestions regarding the form of women's sports, but eliminating cis-womens only sports would not be an an acceptable solution, IMO.


Having one standard rather than many is certainly better. But no matter where you draw the line, someone is going to be just above or just below the line. Is it 'fair' that someone just below your line competes with women and someone just above the line competes with men?
Click to expand...
Yes, if you are above that "line" you can still compete, just at the next higher level. 100% fair.



I don't agree. There are plenty of women out there that could kick my ass. And I have a penis. There is no bright line in athletic ability between male and female in general.

barfo
Click to expand...
The world record holder for most women athletics are about equal to the records of HS boys.

This isn't controversial.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Those are disabilities, not people at the top of their physical form. None of those people are prohibited from playing if they can compete. For example, obese people can play golf or baseball just fine. And we have sports for the disabled that able bodied people aren't allowed to compete in.
Click to expand...

Sure. But you are very much against those with "disabilities" who happen to be male moving up to the women's league, even if they'd be in the lower tier of athletes in that league?

I think there's good reasons to prevent those with massively superior size/strength/ability from playing down just to dominate a competition.
But not every would-be male athlete has those attributes.

I would be open to discussing other suggestions regarding the form of women's sports, but eliminating cis-womens only sports would not be an an acceptable solution, IMO.
Click to expand...

"Change is ok, as long as there is no change"

barfo
 
One could argue Brittney Grinder and Elena Delle Donne had a vast unfair advantage in high school basketball. So did Shaq and LeBron.
 
barfo said:
Sure. But you are very much against those with "disabilities" who happen to be male moving up to the women's league, even if they'd be in the lower tier of athletes in that league?
Click to expand...

There are mens leagues they can play up to with similar levels of competition as womens leagues. There are far more men's options than there are women only options.

I think there's good reasons to prevent those with massively superior size/strength/ability from playing down just to dominate a competition.
But not every would-be male athlete has those attributes.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is no male who has to worry about his menstrual cycle and how that impacts training. There is no male who has to worry about getting pregnant and missing extended time to carry and deliver the baby. Or the recovery after that.

There is no male who has to worry about the increase instance of injuries inherent to being a female athlete.

"Change is ok, as long as there is no change"

barfo
Click to expand...
If the only thing you consider being change is eliminating cis-womens sports then yes, that is correct.

Next you'll be advocating for the end end of Title IX...
 
Last edited:
crandc said:
One could argue Brittney Grinder and Elena Delle Donne had a vast unfair advantage in high school basketball. So did Shaq and LeBron.
Click to expand...
And they were playing at the highest level for their sex and class. Which is excellent.

Brittney Griner and Elena Delle Donne would not have gotten high level D1 scholarships if there were no womans only league.
 
Last edited:
Women got D1 scholarships before there was a women's league.
 
crandc said:
Women got D1 scholarships before there was a women's league.
Click to expand...
I don't believe women were getting D1 basketball scholarships before there was a women's college basketball league. And they wouldn't be today. Even if a few did, the vast majority of those who do now, would not.

It would be devastating for female athletes.
 
OunoqxB.jpg
 
SlyPokerDog said:
OunoqxB.jpg
Click to expand...

One solution could be just to make them pay bathrooms, and be unisex.

Or, a much easier solution would be for people to quit making up things about members of LGBTQ groups going into bathrooms and molesting their daughters and sons, and just fucking let people piss and poop in peace.
 
Phatguysrule said:
There are mens leagues they can play up to with similar levels of competition as womens leagues. There are far more men's options than there are women only options.
Click to expand...

Well, that seems wrong, doesn't it? If you are insisting that women be 'separate but equal', shouldn't they at least be equal in opportunity?

Next you'll be advocating for the end end of Title IX...
Click to expand...

Not the overall Title IX, which bars discrimination.
But I would advocate for ending athletic scholarships for women.
And also for men. Colleges need to get out of the sports business.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Well, that seems wrong, doesn't it? If you are insisting that women be 'separate but equal', shouldn't they at least be equal in opportunity?
Click to expand...

I don't think I said anything about seperate but equal. But there is already far more opportunity for men.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Not the overall Title IX, which bars discrimination.
But I would advocate for ending athletic scholarships for women.
And also for men. Colleges need to get out of the sports business.

barfo
Click to expand...
I would be fine with ending athletic scholarships once everybody can go to school for free.

But I still wouldn't support ending cis-women only sports.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I don't think I said anything about seperate but equal. But there is already far more opportunity for men.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Click to expand...

I was saying the status quo that you are defending discriminates against women.
And "separate but equal" is a reference to segregation.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I was saying the status quo that you are defending discriminates against women.
And "separate but equal" is a reference to segregation.

barfo
Click to expand...
Interesting. Can you please explain how anything I've suggested discriminates against women?

From my perspective women are welcome to play up into any league they can compete in.
 
Last edited:
gul·li·ble
/ˈɡələb(ə)l/


adjective
adjective: gullible
easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Can you please explain why you bolded that, and how it's relevant?
Click to expand...

More opportunities for men means necessarily implies fewer opportunities for women. Fewer opportunities is a bad thing.
I'm actually confused about what part of that you aren't understanding?

barfo
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
julius said:
Oh heavens to Betsy, I got the vapors! A non verbal girl wants to identify....as a cat??!

But that's just caaaarazy!
Click to expand...

DeSantis better get on this right away! This supposed cat-girl (in Australia) is a existential threat to our American way of life!

barfo
 
barfo said:
DeSantis better get on this right away! This supposed cat-girl (in Australia) is a existential threat to our American way of life!

barfo
Click to expand...

She's hates America!
 
barfo said:
DeSantis better get on this right away! This supposed cat-girl (in Australia) is a existential threat to our American way of life!

barfo
Click to expand...

Ah, a concession on your part. Bravo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top