https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/65051900
Thoughts on this?
My opinion: I am not that bothered about it and I don't care about women's sport but it is a pretty significant story so I thought I'd post it here.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 23, 2023, 11:08 PMhttps://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/65051900
Thoughts on this?
My opinion: I am not that bothered about it and I don't care about women's sport but it is a pretty significant story so I thought I'd post it here.
To protect the integrity of women's sports, it's probably the right move.
On the other hand, very few watch women's sports, maybe having some trans women athletes would make it more watchable.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 23, 2023, 11:08 PMhttps://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/65051900
Thoughts on this?
My opinion: I am not that bothered about it and I don't care about women's sport but it is a pretty significant story so I thought I'd post it here.
if you have a penis you shouldn't participate in women's sports or be incarcerated with women
these are big losers for the left because the mental gymnastics it takes to think otherwise are herculean
it's like yeah i love you; sure you're really a woman nope you can't be on the team
hormones and yada yada don't care just nah nope no
Quote from: SGR on Mar 23, 2023, 11:18 PMQuote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 23, 2023, 11:08 PMhttps://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/65051900
Thoughts on this?
My opinion: I am not that bothered about it and I don't care about women's sport but it is a pretty significant story so I thought I'd post it here.
To protect the integrity of women's sports, it's probably the right move.
On the other hand, very few watch women's sports, maybe having some trans women athletes would make it more watchable.
women's basketball soccer and softball are all more popular in america than jazz for whatever that's worth
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 23, 2023, 11:23 PMQuote from: SGR on Mar 23, 2023, 11:18 PMQuote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 23, 2023, 11:08 PMhttps://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/65051900
Thoughts on this?
My opinion: I am not that bothered about it and I don't care about women's sport but it is a pretty significant story so I thought I'd post it here.
To protect the integrity of women's sports, it's probably the right move.
On the other hand, very few watch women's sports, maybe having some trans women athletes would make it more watchable.
women's basketball soccer and softball are all more popular in america than jazz for whatever that's worth
I mean, I don't doubt it, but how do you compare sport viewing and music consumption?
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 23, 2023, 11:23 PMQuote from: SGR on Mar 23, 2023, 11:18 PMQuote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 23, 2023, 11:08 PMhttps://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/65051900
Thoughts on this?
My opinion: I am not that bothered about it and I don't care about women's sport but it is a pretty significant story so I thought I'd post it here.
To protect the integrity of women's sports, it's probably the right move.
On the other hand, very few watch women's sports, maybe having some trans women athletes would make it more watchable.
women's basketball soccer and softball are all more popular in america than jazz for whatever that's worth
No, they're not more popular than me.
Quote from: SGR on Mar 23, 2023, 11:25 PMQuote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 23, 2023, 11:23 PMQuote from: SGR on Mar 23, 2023, 11:18 PMQuote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 23, 2023, 11:08 PMhttps://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/65051900
Thoughts on this?
My opinion: I am not that bothered about it and I don't care about women's sport but it is a pretty significant story so I thought I'd post it here.
To protect the integrity of women's sports, it's probably the right move.
On the other hand, very few watch women's sports, maybe having some trans women athletes would make it more watchable.
women's basketball soccer and softball are all more popular in america than jazz for whatever that's worth
I mean, I don't doubt it, but how do you compare sport viewing and music consumption?
attendance revenue media coverage whatever metric
people actually do care about women's sports
QuoteNo trans woman is out to rape women in bathrooms or prisons, and forcing them into those male environments is endangering them greatly
i think i'm the only one who has even mentioned prison reform and the problems with rape sexual assault torture and extreme bullying in american prisons
that's a bread and butter talking point when it comes to america's social problems with me
putting penises in female prisons is absolute madness
i'll support other segregation trans only annexes
the abolition of prison altogether
but penises - the primary instrument of rape- in women's prisons - it's not even on the table
yes trans women will be demolished in make prisons
so will fifty something white men with diabetes who have to urinate every thirty minutes
i would be raped repeatedly same as you
it's a prison reform issue
going to the bathroom and going to prison- the arguments might sound the same to you and i don't blame you for arguing on your own behalf- you should - but it's not the same
i get they both cast trans women as predators- but it's not like trans women can't be predators (or imposters) and prison culture as it is today is hunters and hunted
i know you don't want trans women to be hunted - i don't either but women in women's prisons shouldn't have to deal with a new class of penis having inmates
I apologize for posting that, I said I would keep out of controversial debates and I meant that. I gave into my impulse. I will excuse myself from this discussion.
Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Mar 24, 2023, 12:28 AMI apologize for posting that, I said I would keep out of controversial debates and I meant that. I gave into my impulse. I will excuse myself from this discussion.
What was it 😲
Guessing you edited your post. Was it abusive or something?
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 24, 2023, 01:28 AMQuote from: Mrs. Waffles on Mar 24, 2023, 12:28 AMI apologize for posting that, I said I would keep out of controversial debates and I meant that. I gave into my impulse. I will excuse myself from this discussion.
What was it 😲
Guessing you edited your post. Was it abusive or something?
I posted in response to Toy Revolver's post about trans people in sports and prisons. I was attempting to debate him, but I deleted the post as I have been trying to stay out of debates on current issues for the sake of my own mental health.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 24, 2023, 01:28 AMQuote from: Mrs. Waffles on Mar 24, 2023, 12:28 AMI apologize for posting that, I said I would keep out of controversial debates and I meant that. I gave into my impulse. I will excuse myself from this discussion.
What was it 😲
Guessing you edited your post. Was it abusive or something?
Oh now, you don't expect our Lady to be abusive do you? She's one of the nicest people on here!
As for the story, I find this a tough one. I believe trans people are not being excluded due to their gender per se, or as a a way to, Florida-style, cull them from history, or whatever, but I think it hinges more on the fact that, no matter how much a man may change when they transition, much of the male attributes may still be there, possibly. I'm not sure. I'm not saying every trans woman is a musclebound guy in disguise or anything, but I think the worry is that some male "attributes", in terms of maybe stamina, energy, speed, constitution and all that may remain, and may be seen to put, um, how do I refer to them? Genetically original females? Anyway, those who are born as female is what I mean, may put them at a disadvantage.
I'm not sure. But I suppose as long as the objection is more on a basis of fairness to all rather than discrimination to one gender, I'd support it. I wonder if anyone has considered a trans sports thing? Trans teams competing against each other? Couldn't ban them from that. Florida would of course, as would probably Texas, but I'm talking about sane people here.
Wouldn't you end up in the same situation? Segregating trans men teams from trans women teams?
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 23, 2023, 11:08 PMhttps://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/65051900
Thoughts on this?
My opinion: I am not that bothered about it and I don't care about women's sport but it is a pretty significant story so I thought I'd post it here.
i mean honestly they should just let them in. We might finally see some good dunks in the WNBA.
Women's cycling champ quits after loss to trans rider (https://nypost.com/2023/03/23/transgender-cyclist-wins-nyc-womens-race/)QuoteShe said that it "has become increasingly discouraging to train as hard as I do only to have to lose to a man with the unfair advantage of an androgenized body that intrinsically gives him an obvious advantage over me, no matter how hard I train."
"I feel for young girls learning to compete and who are growing up in a day when they no longer have a fair chance at being the new record holders and champions in cycling," she wrote.
"I have felt deeply angered, disappointed, overlooked, and humiliated that the rule makers of women's sports do not feel it is necessary to protect women's sports to ensure fair competition for women anymore," she wrote in the filing.
I think the trans women in sports issue is complex and sensitive. I'm not sure what I think should be the solution, but I know it should be discussed in a careful and nuanced way, and I have seen none of that here. Especially Hawk's comments are insensitive and short-sighted. It doesn't sit well with me that nobody is calling it out and Synthgirl is the only one apologising here
Quote from: Marie Monday on Mar 24, 2023, 12:07 PMI think the trans women in sports issue is complex and sensitive. I'm not sure what I think should be the solution, but I know it should be discussed in a careful and nuanced way, and I have seen none of that here. Especially Hawk's comments are insensitive and short-sighted. It doesn't sit well with me that nobody is calling it out and Synthgirl is the only one apologising here
Very well said and I totally agree. This does not make for a friendly, welcoming community.
the issue is a no win
you say yes and you're against fair play for women
you say no and you're transphobic
i quess i care more about the integrity of women's sports than i do about this particular right
the uncomfortable truth is you basically have to decide if trans women are women or trans
measuring hormones or whatever doesn't cut it with sports so it forces your hand
it's an unfair litmus test if you want to support trans women and still keep within the parameters of credulity
Quote from: Marie Monday on Mar 24, 2023, 12:07 PMI think the trans women in sports issue is complex and sensitive. I'm not sure what I think should be the solution, but I know it should be discussed in a careful and nuanced way, and I have seen none of that here. Especially Hawk's comments are insensitive and short-sighted. It doesn't sit well with me that nobody is calling it out and Synthgirl is the only one apologising here
Well I sent her a DM to ask if I should delete the post. I can't really 'call out' something I didn't see the full posts before they were edited/removed.
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 24, 2023, 02:14 PMthe issue is a no win
you say yes and you're against fair play for women
you say no and you're transphobic
i quess i care more about the integrity of women's sports than i do about this particular right
the uncomfortable truth is you basically have to decide if trans women are women or trans
measuring hormones or whatever doesn't cut it with sports so it forces your hand
it's an unfair litmus test if you want to support trans women and still keep within the parameters of credulity
my point is that precisely because it's uncomfortable and it's not trivial to arrive at a satisfactory solution we should treat the problem carefully. My problem is not with whether your answer to the dilemma is a yes or no, but whether the answer is argued with the proper care and respect
For the record, my deleted post only talked about the safety of trans women in prison, I did not weigh in on the sports issue. I did not feel uncomfortable or disrespected by Toy Revolver posting his views on penis-having trans women in prison. I disagreed with them and then I deleted the post as I ultimately felt like I did not wish to have a debate. Thank you for your understanding and attention to sensitivity and respect.
Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Mar 24, 2023, 03:18 PMFor the record, my deleted post only talked about the safety of trans women in prison, I did not weigh in on the sports issue. I did not feel uncomfortable or disrespected by Toy Revolver posting his views on penis-having trans women in prison. I disagreed with them and then I deleted the post as I ultimately felt like I did not wish to have a debate. Thank you for your understanding and attention to sensitivity and respect.
it's ok not to dis me despite popular opinion 💕
Don't be childish. I'm not trying to diss you or trying to pick an argument. I'm just explaining, speaking for myself only, why I have an issue with your post, and being petty about it is not an appropriate reaction
Quote from: Marie Monday on Mar 24, 2023, 04:36 PMDon't be childish. I'm not trying to diss you or trying to pick an argument. I'm just explaining, speaking for myself only, why I have an issue with your post, and being petty about it is not an appropriate reaction
yes ma'am
God damn it. I wrote a long-ish post responding to you, Marie, but for some reason it's vanished, like an old oak table. Sorry, that's varnished. Well, it's gone anyway.
Basically, I wanted to apologise if anything I said upset anyone, which I hope it did not.
I also wanted to point out that I think it's wrong for the female athlete to have used the word "man" to describe a trans athlete. Wrong and quite possibly part of an agenda to skew opinion onto her side. And completely disingenuous. Trans do not want to be referred to as men, they've made huge efforts to leave that behind, and it's really borderline hateful to insist on calling them by the term they've struggled to ditch.
I wish I had my original post, but that's the gist I guess.
Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 24, 2023, 04:47 PMGod damn it. I wrote a long-ish post responding to you, Marie, but for some reason it's vanished, like an old oak table. Sorry, that's varnished. Well, it's gone anyway.
Basically, I wanted to apologise if anything I said upset anyone, which I hope it did not.
I also wanted to point out that I think it's wrong for the female athlete to have used the word "man" to describe a trans athlete. Wrong and quite possibly part of an agenda to skew opinion onto her side. And completely disingenuous. Trans do not want to be referred to as men, they've made huge efforts to leave that behind, and it's really borderline hateful to insist on calling them by the term they've struggled to ditch.
I wish I had my original post, but that's the gist I guess.
i really don't care about the sports thing that much. Call me crazy but we're talking about a field where to be the greatest you have to be on fuckin steroids that make you want to murder your family like chris benoit.
I think the prison thing is questionable but i also think it's definitely true that trans women will be much more at risk in men's prison. I could see a separate wing or something in the woman's prison. I don't really know.
And the bathrooms thing is a completely contrived culture war. Who is checking ids? Either you pass the looks based test to enter the woman's room or you don't. It's women at the end of the day who police that shit.
the dismissiveness of women's sports on here is misogynistic af but i guess that's cool with everyone
QuoteAnd the bathrooms thing is a completely contrived culture war. Who is checking ids? Either you pass the looks based test to enter the woman's room or you don't. It's women at the end of the day who police that shit.
except at school, which is stupidly compulsory - but forcing children to do things they don't want to is totally cool since oprah hasn't told everyone it isn't yet
Inside the wild federal trial of the Fugees' Pras that begins Monday (https://nypost.com/2023/03/25/inside-the-federal-trial-of-fugees-pras-starting-march-27/)
Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 25, 2023, 02:10 PMInside the wild federal trial of the Fugees' Pras that begins Monday (https://nypost.com/2023/03/25/inside-the-federal-trial-of-fugees-pras-starting-march-27/)
that's wild
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 02:25 PMQuote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 25, 2023, 02:10 PMInside the wild federal trial of the Fugees' Pras that begins Monday (https://nypost.com/2023/03/25/inside-the-federal-trial-of-fugees-pras-starting-march-27/)
that's wild
Indeed.
It's got all the makings of a hit TV mini-series.
Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 25, 2023, 04:05 PMQuote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 02:25 PMQuote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 25, 2023, 02:10 PMInside the wild federal trial of the Fugees' Pras that begins Monday (https://nypost.com/2023/03/25/inside-the-federal-trial-of-fugees-pras-starting-march-27/)
that's wild
Indeed.
It's got all the makings of a hit TV mini-series.
i'm sure netflix and hulu are on it like ants on candy
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/24/world/fungus-pandemic-frogs-amphibians-scn
frog fungus
this is so disturbing to me makes my skin crawl - nature can be so hideous
Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 25, 2023, 02:10 PMInside the wild federal trial of the Fugees' Pras that begins Monday (https://nypost.com/2023/03/25/inside-the-federal-trial-of-fugees-pras-starting-march-27/)
I find it hilarious that the fund this guy stole four bill from is almost IMDB! :laughing:
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 06:59 AMthe dismissiveness of women's sports on here is misogynistic af but i guess that's cool with everyone
QuoteAnd the bathrooms thing is a completely contrived culture war. Who is checking ids? Either you pass the looks based test to enter the woman's room or you don't. It's women at the end of the day who police that shit.
except at school, which is stupidly compulsory - but forcing children to do things they don't want to is totally cool since oprah hasn't told everyone it isn't yet
i would never deny being misogynistic so that's a pretty lame attempt at a gotcha.
honestly your side acts like the T's are poised to completely take over women's sports when the reality is its just a handful of athletes and they can't compete in the mens league either. The choice at the moment is either the women's league lets them in and they have a handful of trans athletes in their leagues or else trans women don't get to play sports. That's just the reality.
As for the school comment..i don't even get what point you are trying to drive at or how it relates to the portion of my post you quoted.
1) i'm not trying get a gotcha
2) school is the primary place where people are forced to be in a location all day and have to go to use toilets that provide insufficient privacy
the complaint about the compulsory component was at least 90% a non-sequitur or just a random semi-related thought
quit acting like pre-post-modernist
it's 2023
QuoteThe choice at the moment is either the women's league lets them in and they have a handful of trans athletes in their leagues or else trans women don't get to play sports.
lol thanks for the breakdown
So it was 100% unrelated and you could have just as easily posted it without quoting me. I don't like it when people pretend to respond to me. Either do or don't.
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 08:42 PMlol thanks for the breakdown
So why do you think trans women shouldn't be able to play sports?
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 25, 2023, 08:48 PMSo it was 100% unrelated and you could have just as easily posted it without quoting me. I don't like it when people pretend to respond to me. Either do or don't.
did yall see that tornado in mississippi
No you post shit that looks superficially like an argument. But it's not. It's a deflection.
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 06:59 AMthe dismissiveness of women's sports on here is misogynistic af but i guess that's cool with everyone
Do you watch women's sports?
Only the high school leagues.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 25, 2023, 09:05 PMQuote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 06:59 AMthe dismissiveness of women's sports on here is misogynistic af but i guess that's cool with everyone
Do you watch women's sports?
yes - college basketball and soccer mostly
i've been following the women's ncaa tournament more closely than the men's this year
i also like gymnastics
I don't watch women's sport for the same reason I don't watch youth sport or non league. It is not the top level.
Except at youth level in the men's you will at least see the most talented kids who might be the future of the sport.
You don't get that in women's.
I don't think it's misogyny. Just reality. If you're happy watching lower level that's fine but I'm not.
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 09:23 PMQuote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 25, 2023, 09:05 PMQuote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 06:59 AMthe dismissiveness of women's sports on here is misogynistic af but i guess that's cool with everyone
Do you watch women's sports?
yes - college basketball and soccer mostly
i've been following the women's ncaa tournament more closely than the men's this year
i also like gymnastics
how many lay ups have you counted so far?
I really don't watch sports in general anymore except for occasionally the NFL. I'm a Giants fan so even that is a kinda depressing experience
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 25, 2023, 09:49 PMI don't watch women's sport for the same reason I don't watch youth sport or non league. It is not the top level.
Except at youth level in the men's you will at least see the most talented kids who might be the future of the sport.
You don't get that in women's.
I don't think it's misogyny. Just reality. If you're happy watching lower level that's fine but I'm not.
Have to say I'm the same. Tried to watch WSL (Women's Super League - football no not soccer fuck off we had it first you call yours something else) but the roar of the crowd wasn't there, didn't know any of the players and basically it meant nothing to me. I mean, fair play to them and I know they do well, and it's quite popular, but give me the men's football every time. I'll watch ice skating or tennis, that's about it for women's sports, or women in sports.
But jwb makes a good point about trans athletes: it's a case of falling between two stools isn't it, neither of which wants them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Very tough.
Lingerie football is a thing? Why am I only learning about this now???
Also, is this the only sport in which a streaker is fully clothed when they invade the pitch? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
QuoteTried to watch WSL (Women's Super League - football no not soccer fuck off we had it first you call yours something else)
lol anything has to be better than irish soccer
3 world cup appearances from a country that cares about it
how's it possible for any country to be that unathletic - and you all support arsenal or manchester united and it's not even your country
that's like me watching canadian football- i'd be ashamed
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 10:42 PMQuoteTried to watch WSL (Women's Super League - football no not soccer fuck off we had it first you call yours something else)
lol anything has to be better than irish soccer
3 world cup appearances from a country that cares about it
how's it possible for any country to be that unathletic - and you all support arsenal or manchester united and it's not even your country
that's like me watching canadian football- i'd be ashamed
Add Celtic to that. And this absolutely takes the piss, by the way.
For a country who never stops going on about how much they hate the British they do love supporting our teams and walking about in our football shirts.
This is not directed toward you Trolls.
Unless you consider yourself anti British, then it is.
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 08:42 PMto use toilets that provide insufficient privacy
If you are referring to the gaps between stall doors and under the door...yea what the fuck is that. My whole life wondered why on earth that became the norm in America. Who wants people to see in while youre shitting.
Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 25, 2023, 10:02 PMQuote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 25, 2023, 09:49 PMI don't watch women's sport for the same reason I don't watch youth sport or non league. It is not the top level.
Except at youth level in the men's you will at least see the most talented kids who might be the future of the sport.
You don't get that in women's.
I don't think it's misogyny. Just reality. If you're happy watching lower level that's fine but I'm not.
Have to say I'm the same. Tried to watch WSL (Women's Super League - football no not soccer fuck off we had it first you call yours something else) but the roar of the crowd wasn't there, didn't know any of the players and basically it meant nothing to me. I mean, fair play to them and I know they do well, and it's quite popular, but give me the men's football every time. I'll watch ice skating or tennis, that's about it for women's sports, or women in sports.
But jwb makes a good point about trans athletes: it's a case of falling between two stools isn't it, neither of which wants them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Very tough.
no thank you. Instead we'll keep calling it football and referring to teams that win the superbowl as the "world champions" lol.
Guest
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 10:42 PMQuoteTried to watch WSL (Women's Super League - football no not soccer fuck off we had it first you call yours something else)
lol anything has to be better than irish soccer
3 world cup appearances from a country that cares about it
how's it possible for any country to be that unathletic - and you all support arsenal or manchester united and it's not even your country
that's like me watching canadian football- i'd be ashamed
Absolutely agree. Irish team should disband and fuck off. Biggest cheer we get is when we qualify for a World Cup or European Championship, and then everyone expects us to suck. And we do not disappoint.
Not to mention that most of our better players - all right, all of our better - damn it, ok! All of our players who are anyway decent at all - play in the English leagues anyway, so how Irish are we? We do excel at falling apart when it counts most that we don't. I used to have in my sig on MB "as Irish as losing a three-nil lead in a must-win fixture." Not that, as far as I know, we were ever three goals ahead.
Our biggest and most memorable - and kind of only real - victory was beating world champions Italy 1-0 at Giants Stadium. We'll always have that.
Which is just as well, as we'll never see those days again! :laughing:
Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 26, 2023, 03:36 AMGuest
Quote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 10:42 PMQuoteTried to watch WSL (Women's Super League - football no not soccer fuck off we had it first you call yours something else)
lol anything has to be better than irish soccer
3 world cup appearances from a country that cares about it
how's it possible for any country to be that unathletic - and you all support arsenal or manchester united and it's not even your country
that's like me watching canadian football- i'd be ashamed
Absolutely agree. Irish team should disband and fuck off. Biggest cheer we get is when we qualify for a World Cup or European Championship, and then everyone expects us to suck. And we do not disappoint.
Not to mention that most of our better players - all right, all of our better - damn it, ok! All of our players who are anyway decent at all - play in the English leagues anyway, so how Irish are we? We do excel at falling apart when it counts most that we don't. I used to have in my sig on MB "as Irish as losing a three-nil lead in a must-win fixture." Not that, as far as I know, we were ever three goals ahead.
Our biggest and most memorable - and kind of only real - victory was beating world champions Italy 1-0 at Giants Stadium. We'll always have that.
Which is just as well, as we'll never see those days again! :laughing:
i remember that world cup but not that game
it was huge in america and i remember when usa played brazil brazil was down a man so i thought we might win but brazil still won
wikipedia says it ended brazil beating italy in a shootout but i don't remember that
i just remember everyone had a soccer fever and that one game
I'm sure it was yet another riveting 1-0 match. Soccer is so boring that it's the only sport where they play right through the fuckin commercial breaks. That's why they have to shout goal for 45 seconds straight every time someone scores.
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 25, 2023, 09:58 PMQuote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 09:23 PMQuote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 25, 2023, 09:05 PMQuote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 06:59 AMthe dismissiveness of women's sports on here is misogynistic af but i guess that's cool with everyone
Do you watch women's sports?
yes - college basketball and soccer mostly
i've been following the women's ncaa tournament more closely than the men's this year
i also like gymnastics
how many lay ups have you counted so far?
I really don't watch sports in general anymore except for occasionally the NFL. I'm a Giants fan so even that is a kinda depressing experience
A Giants fan?! Well thanks bro for Kadarius Toney. That dude was a difference maker in the Super Bowl.
Also, how do you feel about the Danny Dimes contract? :laughing:
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 25, 2023, 11:47 PMno thank you. Instead we'll keep calling it football and referring to teams that win the superbowl as the "world champions" lol.
Yup, world champs because we're waiting for the rest of the world to put together team(s) that can compete - but there's never any takers. And yeah, soccer is a snorefest. Give me true blue American Football over that nyquil-like sport any day.
You people suck. :puke:
Football rules. Hand Egg sucks.
Right to the last fucking kick, lads. Right to the last fucking kick.
Americans not getting soccerball is fine afaic. Those who are passionate about it (and talk about "the numbers" or stuff like how Messi is coming to Miami because they promised him 30% of the club's stock if he's signign with them and their stock price rose by a lot in the past few years etc) are far, far more annoying
Quote from: SGR on Mar 26, 2023, 08:04 AMQuote from: Jwb on Mar 25, 2023, 09:58 PMQuote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 09:23 PMQuote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 25, 2023, 09:05 PMQuote from: Toy Revolver on Mar 25, 2023, 06:59 AMthe dismissiveness of women's sports on here is misogynistic af but i guess that's cool with everyone
Do you watch women's sports?
yes - college basketball and soccer mostly
i've been following the women's ncaa tournament more closely than the men's this year
i also like gymnastics
how many lay ups have you counted so far?
I really don't watch sports in general anymore except for occasionally the NFL. I'm a Giants fan so even that is a kinda depressing experience
A Giants fan?! Well thanks bro for Kadarius Toney. That dude was a difference maker in the Super Bowl.
Also, how do you feel about the Danny Dimes contract? :laughing:
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 25, 2023, 11:47 PMno thank you. Instead we'll keep calling it football and referring to teams that win the superbowl as the "world champions" lol.
Yup, world champs because we're waiting for the rest of the world to put together team(s) that can compete - but there's never any takers. And yeah, soccer is a snorefest. Give me true blue American Football over that nyquil-like sport any day.
sigh.... i guess we will probably find out next season whether it was just a fluke. I never thought i would actually miss the runt of the Manning family.
Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 27, 2023, 04:55 PMYou people suck. :puke:
Football rules. Hand Egg sucks.
Right to the last fucking kick, lads. Right to the last fucking kick.
haha video not available
Apparently my country doesn't even want me watching a single clip of your shitty third world sport. I rarely side with the censors but this one was probably a good call.
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 27, 2023, 09:07 PMQuote from: Trollheart on Mar 27, 2023, 04:55 PMYou people suck. :puke:
Football rules. Hand Egg sucks.
Right to the last fucking kick, lads. Right to the last fucking kick.
haha video not available
:laughing:
Haha video must have been blocked by Man United!
(It was Aguerro scoring the winning goal that won Man City the Premiership title in 2012, thus denying, in mere seconds, it to their hated rivals, Man United, who were all but popping champagne corks at the time)
(https://i.postimg.cc/RFbrcgGB/D14-BB679-690-A-4-E87-8035-BB380-E360110.jpg)
just posting this nytimes screenshot to point out how popular women's sports are in america- i consider it a good quality about our culture-
zzzzzzzz
Some of our most popular / well known athletes are women, like Marit Bjørgen and Therese Johaug. This is long distance skiing by the way. Women's handball was a lot more popular than men's as well. Our most famous boxer is a woman, Cecilie Brækhus.
I assume man dominated sports or men's leagues are still more popular (the only sport I ever slightly cared about is chess, so I don't know much), but it's not one-sided here at least. Put on the spot, I could name more female athletes.
Quote from: Guybrush on Apr 02, 2023, 11:56 PMSome of our most popular / well known athletes are women, like Marit Bjørgen and Therese Johaug. This is long distance skiing by the way. Women's handball was a lot more popular than men's as well. Our most famous boxer is a woman, Cecilie Brækhus.
I assume man dominated sports or men's leagues are still more popular (the only sport I ever slightly cared about is chess, so I don't know much), but it's not one-sided here at least. Put on the spot, I could name more female athletes.
lol... long distance skiing and handball huh? I stand corrected then. :p
Quote from: Jwb on Apr 03, 2023, 06:28 AMQuote from: Guybrush on Apr 02, 2023, 11:56 PMSome of our most popular / well known athletes are women, like Marit Bjørgen and Therese Johaug. This is long distance skiing by the way. Women's handball was a lot more popular than men's as well. Our most famous boxer is a woman, Cecilie Brækhus.
I assume man dominated sports or men's leagues are still more popular (the only sport I ever slightly cared about is chess, so I don't know much), but it's not one-sided here at least. Put on the spot, I could name more female athletes.
lol... long distance skiing and handball huh? I stand corrected then. :p
It's all a big yawn to me, but at least I think handball has a lot more scores than soccer.
Why soccer? American football is probably more fun, but then your athletes do get swiss cheese brains from all the concussions.
Quote from: Guybrush on Apr 03, 2023, 06:45 AMAmerican football is probably more fun, but then your athletes do get swiss cheese brains from all the concussions.
It seems like half of them are already that way even before they start playing football.
Going to be an absolute shitfest after this.
https://news.sky.com/story/paris-2024-boxer-who-failed-gender-eligibility-test-at-world-championships-wins-olympic-bout-in-46-seconds-after-opponent-quits-13188674
QuoteA boxer who was previously banned from competing in the world championships because she failed testosterone and gender eligibility tests has won her opening Olympic bout after her opponent quit.
Algeria's Imane Khelif won in just 46 seconds after the Italian Angela Carini quit in the 66kg category.
The pair had only a few punch exchanges before Carini abandoned the bout - an extremely unusual occurrence in Olympic boxing.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Aug 01, 2024, 04:32 PMGoing to be an absolute shitfest after this.
https://news.sky.com/story/paris-2024-boxer-who-failed-gender-eligibility-test-at-world-championships-wins-olympic-bout-in-46-seconds-after-opponent-quits-13188674
So this is not a trans woman but a cis woman with naturally high testosterone levels, no?
QuoteIgnoring the Algerian, the Italian fighter then plunged to her knees and burst into tears as she said she had never felt such strong blows in a contest before.
Lol like, sorry lady, but you got your ass kicked by another girl. Nice try weaponizing your tears.
Quite the slippery slope to assess the "right" level of hormones to be deemed gender eligible.
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Aug 01, 2024, 04:54 PMSo this is not a trans woman but a cis woman with high testosterone levels, no?
The IBA has said no, the Olympics have said yes.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Aug 01, 2024, 04:57 PMThe IBA has said no, the Olympics have said yes.
Reading her history she grew up in rural Algeria, and wasn't allowed to play sports as a kid because she was a girl.
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Aug 01, 2024, 04:59 PMReading her history she grew up in rural Algeria, and wasn't allowed to play sports as a kid because she was a girl.
There seems to be a bit of a conflict between the IBA and Olympics as to what tests have been done and what the results were.
If she is a biological woman then I can't see why she shouldn't be allowed to box.
I found no evidence whatsoever that she's trans, and there's certainly evidence to the contrary. Also the Italian opponent clearly stated that her abandonment of the match is not meant as criticism (whether that's true or not, but that doesn't really matter). Just another case of an article being phrased to insinuate stuff to make people angry
She's just a beast. In the most complimentary of ways.
Kermit and his ilk can't wrap their heads around the duality of hormones lol.
Quote from: Marie Monday on Aug 01, 2024, 05:18 PMI found no evidence whatsoever that she's trans, and there's certainly evidence to the contrary. Also the Italian opponent clearly stated that her abandonment of the match is not meant as criticism (whether that's true or not, but that doesn't really matter). Just another case of an article being phrased to insinuate stuff to make people angry
IDK, Mary. I think it's possible that a country that banned gender affirming care might use a transgender person to represent their country in the Olympics.
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Aug 01, 2024, 05:32 PMShe's just a beast. In the most complimentary of ways.
Seems like this is most likely the case yes.
Funny isn't it, there's just old-fashioned sexism behind it too. If a man is really strong everyone thinks it's badass, but when it's a woman it's Wrong somehow and testosterone levels are investigated
Quote from: Marie Monday on Aug 01, 2024, 06:29 PMFunny isn't it, there's just old-fashioned sexism behind it too. If a man is really strong everyone thinks it's badass, but when it's a woman it's Wrong somehow and testosterone levels are investigated
Not really pretty much every pro athlete is tested regularly for things like that and also the presence of banned substances.
It's the scaremongering though that makes people think testosterone = trans = bad
To a broader point, what boxer, who trains and knows full well what boxing is and what it entails, cries foul when they get their face punched in? What viewers cry foul when watching a boxing match as someone gets their face punched in and says: "Oh my god, can you believe it?! They just got their face punched in!! The horror!!"
(https://i0.wp.com/www.johnphung.com/images/Everyone-Has-A-Plan-Mike-Tyson.gif)
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Aug 01, 2024, 05:32 PMKermit and his ilk can't wrap their heads around the duality of hormones lol.
Don't you bring Kermit into this.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1047905908230168577/p0p06Ef5_400x400.jpg)
Jokes aside it's pretty fucked up that this athlete's life is now in danger because being trans or "intersex" is illegal in Algeria.
I'd love to see her smash a few more skulls in
Admittedly, I haven't kept up really with this situation, but how is her life in danger? I mean, would the government of Algeria persecute someone like her because she has higher testosterone than your average woman? I mean, I doubt it if she's in the Olympics bringing them victories and glory (then again, what the fuck do I know about Algerian law?). Or do you think she faces threats from public violence?
Quote from: SGR on Aug 01, 2024, 11:16 PMAdmittedly, I haven't kept up really with this situation, but how is her life in danger? I mean, would the government of Algeria persecute someone like her because she has higher testosterone than your average woman? I mean, I doubt it if she's in the Olympics bringing them victories and glory (then again, what the fuck do I know about Algerian law?). Or do you think she faces threats from public violence?
The latter. How humiliating to have your gender be a topic of discussion on a global level.
JK Rowling for example, is using her platform to call Khalif a man.
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Aug 01, 2024, 11:30 PMThe latter. How humiliating to have your gender be a topic of discussion on a global level.
JK Rowling for example, is using her platform to call Khalif a man.
I think I need to read up a bit on Algeria and its political climate. But yeah, that is humiliating.
JK Rowling is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Quote from: SGR on Aug 01, 2024, 11:38 PMI think I need to read up a bit on Algeria and its political climate. But yeah, that is humiliating.
lol enjoy
Luce is all "oh a country that banned gender affirming care" like bruh, lol, apples to fucking zucchinis
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Aug 01, 2024, 11:51 PMlol enjoy
Luce is all "oh a country that banned gender affirming care" like bruh, lol, apples to fucking zucchinis
Took the words right of out of my mouth.
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Aug 01, 2024, 11:51 PMlol enjoy
Luce is all "oh a country that banned gender affirming care" like bruh, lol, apples to fucking zucchinis
In what way?
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Aug 01, 2024, 11:51 PMlol enjoy
Luce is all "oh a country that banned gender affirming care" like bruh, lol, apples to fucking zucchinis
QuoteArticle 333 of the Algerian law (English translation) reads:
"When the outrage to public decency has consisted of an act against nature with an individual of the same sex, the penalty is imprisonment of between 6 months and 3 years, and a fine of between 1,000 and 10,000 Algerian Dinars."
— Article 333, ILGA May 2008 world laws report[3]
Vigilante executions,[5] beatings,[6] and torture[7] are also allowed with police joining in on the attacks,[7] being complicit, or turning a blind eye.[6]
The criminals laws originate from the prevailing mores in Algeria that view homosexuality and cross-dressing as against the Islamic faith.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Algeria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Algeria)
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/SJUXVwIJXvHQUMnkbV/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952dyfdv1mmeznm5hykvbrkg6or5zzlxls7susuicce&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Aug 02, 2024, 02:08 AMYes.
You're asking why it's inappropriate to compare social policy and identity politics in the US to Algeria?
Like, am I missing something?
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Aug 02, 2024, 02:13 AMYou're asking why it's inappropriate to compare social policy and identity politics in the US to Algeria?
Like, am I missing something?
Is that what you think I was doing?
I felt as if I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of a country like Algeria sending a trans person to represent them in the olympics.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Aug 02, 2024, 02:18 AMIs that what you think I was doing?
I felt as if I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of a country like Algeria sending a trans person to represent them in the olympics.
That's why I'm clarifying!
No I got the initial joke, and was alluding to it even, but then was confused by you questioning the apples to zucchinis thing.
I think I get what you're saying.
So, people who say being male or female depends on chromosomes and type of genitals are now saying simply having higher testosterone makes someone male? Interesting.
Quote from: grindy on Aug 02, 2024, 06:18 AMSo, people who say being male or female depends on chromosomes and type of genitals are now saying simply having higher testosterone makes someone male? Interesting.
Yeah, it's so exasperating and speaks to how their "logic" has no internal consistency.
They're saying that even though she was born with a vagina and uterus, her unusually high testosterone makes her a man... and yet these are the exact. same. people. who say that trans men, who also were born with vaginas and uteruses and have unusually high testosterone, are not men. It's such a colossal joke, and a cruel one at that.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Aug 02, 2024, 10:16 AMYeah, it's so exasperating and speaks to how their "logic" has no internal consistency.
They're saying that even though she was born with a vagina and uterus, her unusually high testosterone makes her a man... and yet these are the exact. same. people. who say that trans men, who also were born with vaginas and uteruses and have unusually high testosterone, are not men. It's such a colossal joke, and a cruel one at that.
I always wonder how many of these people were the first ones to call a guy a girl to insult them at the first sign of any "feminine" quality.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Aug 02, 2024, 03:59 PMI always wonder how many of these people were the first ones to call a guy a girl to insult them at the first sign of any "feminine" quality.
100%
Just can't win
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Aug 02, 2024, 03:59 PMI always wonder how many of these people were the first ones to call a guy a girl to insult them at the first sign of any "feminine" quality.
this is exactly why I hate it so much. It's the same shit I got over me as a kid, but hiding behind feminism.
Quote from: Marie Monday on Aug 02, 2024, 04:31 PMthis is exactly why I hate it so much. It's the same shit I got over me as a kid, but hiding behind feminism.
Yep. It's all misogyny at the end of the day. (and also rape and pedophilia if you ask th)
As far as I know she is genetically XXY which is why there is a question over her competing with XX females. I just thought I'd let yous know as so far I didn't see it mentioned.
Quote from: FETCHER. on Aug 02, 2024, 10:56 PMAs far as I know she is genetically XXY which is why there is a question over her competing with XX females. I just thought I'd let yous know as so far I didn't see it mentioned.
Right, and that's why it's completely disingenuous that TERFs are bringing trans people into it at all, not to mention saying ignorant and mean spirited things like calling her a man.
This could have been discussed practically and rationally but as usual JK Rowling and her cronies refuse to be normal about non-cis sex and gender.
Yeah she is definitely not a trans woman so I don't know why it keeps being portrayed that way. I was actually quite surprised when I read that she was genetically XXY because of how much the reports shoved the word trans in my face.
You have to wonder what these type of people would have thought of, say, Martina Navratilova, or some of the more, what would you say, butch female East German athletes of the 1970s/1980s? Fucking hell. ::) Guess this is what happens when we live in a world when you can literally create your own reality, to suit your personal bias, and others support you.
#RIPTruthandLogic
Quote from: Trollheart on Aug 03, 2024, 12:17 AMYou have to wonder what these type of people would have thought of, say, Martina Navratilova, or some of the more, what would you say, butch female East German athletes of the 1970s/1980s? Fucking hell. ::) Guess this is what happens when we live in a world when you can literally create your own reality, to suit your personal bias, and others support you.
#RIPTruthandLogic
and you have a personal bias that gender is a concrete binary thing that has existed the exact same way throughout history
the reality is that trans identities are real and this kind of dismissive logic really solidifies why it's a travesty that the older generations are the ones with the most say in how the world is run. we are real and predate this colonial way of thinking
Quote from: tristan_geoff on Aug 03, 2024, 01:59 AMand you have a personal bias that gender is a concrete binary thing that has existed the exact same way throughout history
the reality is that trans identities are real and this kind of dismissive logic really solidifies why it's a travesty that the older generations are the ones with the most say in how the world is run. we are real and predate this colonial way of thinking
I hope I'm reading that wrong and you're not accusing me personally of having a bias?
Quote from: Trollheart on Aug 03, 2024, 02:06 AMI hope I'm reading that wrong and you're not accusing me personally of having a bias?
everyone has a bias of some sort right?
you have the bias of probably not having talked to very many trans people during your life
That's a bit presumptious of you now to be fair. Other than what I post here, you know nothing about me. Whether I've met, know or are friends with such people is beside the point. I don't know many black people but don't consider myself racist. Do I have to have a lot of friends or relations with different gender identities to be able to sympathise with them? Frankly, if this isn't a troll, I'm quite insulted.
I also don't see the point of such a comment, or judgement upon my character, as I think I made it clear I don't support such bigotry. Different if I had said these guys have a point, but I didn't, because I don't think they do.
Quote from: Trollheart on Aug 03, 2024, 02:15 AMThat's a bit presumptious of you now to be fair. Other than what I post here, you know nothing about me. Whether I've met, know or are friends with such people is beside the point. I don't know many black people but don't consider myself racist. Do I have to have a lot of friends or relations with different gender identities to be able to sympathise with them? Frankly, if this isn't a troll, I'm quite insulted.
I might be presuming a bit by saying that, and I apologize for the rudeness. The whole, facts are logic are over with trans people thing is such a played out viewpoint that I'm sick of though, and feels incredibly demeaning and disrespectful. Whether you meant it this way or not isn't really something I know though, and I should have approached the topic with less malice, despite that it may have come from a place of having heard this before approaching it with further disrespect is not fair to you either.
Quote from: Trollheart on Aug 03, 2024, 02:15 AMThat's a bit presumptious of you now to be fair. Other than what I post here, you know nothing about me. Whether I've met, know or are friends with such people is beside the point. I don't know many black people but don't consider myself racist. Do I have to have a lot of friends or relations with different gender identities to be able to sympathise with them? Frankly, if this isn't a troll, I'm quite insulted.
I also don't see the point of such a comment, or judgement upon my character, as I think I made it clear I don't support such bigotry. Different if I had said these guys have a point, but I didn't, because I don't think they do.
Because if you knew and communicated frequently with trans people you would be a bit more.. with it. Same thing with black people. It's obvious, lol.
You can not have trans friends and still be an ally, but you have to be willing to examine your own internal bias regarding gender identity.
You can not have black friends and still be anti racist, but you have to be willing to examine your own internal bias regarding race.
Clutching your pearls over being presumed not to have many trans or black friends is evidence enough that you don't lol.
Quote from: tristan_geoff on Aug 03, 2024, 02:21 AMI might be presuming a bit by saying that, and I apologize for the rudeness. The whole, facts are logic are over with trans people thing is such a played out viewpoint that I'm sick of though, and feels incredibly demeaning and disrespectful. Whether you meant it this way or not isn't really something I know though, and I should have approached the topic with less malice, despite that it may have come from a place of having heard this before approaching it with further disrespect is not fair to you either.
I think you misunderstood TH, I don't think he was commenting on trans identities at all; I read his use of the "truth and logic are over" hashtag to refer to how
transphobes are making up their own reality by spreading misinfo about the boxer and calling her a man and such. TH has always been very supportive of trans identity, certainly supportive of me. I think this is a misunderstanding.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Aug 03, 2024, 02:56 AMI think you misunderstood TH, I don't think he was commenting on trans identities at all; I read his use of the "truth and logic are over" hashtag to refer to how transphobes are making up their own reality by spreading misinfo about the boxer and calling her a man and such. TH has always been very supportive of trans identity, certainly supportive of me. I think this is a misunderstanding.
I think I did misunderstand yeah. Sorry Trollheart my reading comprehensions is sai jfkldeiapoghreuiwnab iotneoiw ahgiorednji aj greowahnbijujlorfewaqhnbol joifehwa3hn 98grfes ior398 u(((*H gf4ew9uh jgrepoaj but I'm wokring on it
Everyone, it's cool. Lexi is correct though, and that was what I was saying. My hashtags were laments for the fact that people invent their own truth, and by that I do indeed mean bigots, homophobes (not so much homophones, but I hate those guys with their male attitude towards cell ph - what? That's not what it means? Well, I'll be jiggered), racists, right wing and all that crowd. I can understand both Steph and Tristan's anger if they thought I was saying something else. I wasn't.
Just for the record, and to make sure everyone understands, though I come from an era in which there were only two genders and four "choices", if you will - straight, gay, lesbian and bi - I have absolutely no problem with people identifying as they see fit, or prefer. Gender fluidity is "new" to me, someone who lived through a time when, for quite a while, even being gay was literally illegal and punishable by law (not that I ever agreed with that) but I'm not one to reject new ideas, if they're good. Remember, also, I had to come to terms with being able to telephone someone while out of the house, and pausing live TV! Yeah, I'm old but I hope not stuck in the past.
My own view is that if your gender (assigned) does not make you happy, if you feel better being or identifying as another, then more power to you. Do what makes you happy, is a mantra we could all live by (except that guy who gets his jollies from setting off bombs, now that I can't condone!) :laughing: But there is nothing - I repeat nothing - wrong with people choosing the gender (or even lack of gender?) that makes them happy, and those who try to force their own views and skewed morality on those people need to take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves why they feel the need to police people's - well, not even gender really, but humanity?
The Navratilova mention was to demonstrate how some female athletes - about whose gender there is no doubt, despite some off-colour jokes and remarks - can look more, if you will, masculine, and I just noted that had Martina been winning Wimbeldon in this age, the chances are these self-appointed Guardians of Gender would have tried to make out she was a man.
Anyway, long story short: gender choice good, gender choice bashing bad. I've always been of that opinion, and don't see myself changing. If I misrepresented myself please take this as setting the record straight (no pun intended). In the final analysis, are not rainbows prettier to look at than swastikas?
Peace out.
Troll.
Looks like the FA are using the Supreme Court decision as a reason to ban transgender women from football. Nice one, you shower of backbone-less bigoted cunts. >:( :poop:
Quote from: Trollheart on May 01, 2025, 06:46 PMLooks like the FA are using the Supreme Court decision as a reason to ban transgender women from football. Nice one, you shower of backbone-less bigoted cunts. >:( :poop:
They haven't been banned from football, they're banned from playing for women's teams.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 07:34 PMThey haven't been banned from football, they're banned from playing for women's teams.
Yeah, and under same sex marriage bans, lesbians can still get married to men, so it's not a ban on gay people getting married. ::)
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 01, 2025, 07:48 PMYeah, and under same sex marriage bans, lesbians can still get married to men, so it's not a ban on gay people getting married. ::)
Talking about football.
They haven't been banned. They just can't play for women's teams from next season.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13359121/fa-confirms-transgender-women-can-no-longer-play-in-english-womens-football-from-june-1
QuoteThe Football Association has confirmed that transgender women will no longer be able to play in women's football in England from June 1.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 07:52 PMTalking about football.
They haven't been banned. They just can't play for women's teams from next season.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13359121/fa-confirms-transgender-women-can-no-longer-play-in-english-womens-football-from-june-1
I was making an analogy. Under this new rule, trans women have been banned from playing women's football, but they can still play men's football. Under same sex marriage bans, lesbians are banned from marrying women, but they can still marry men. You're getting hung up on a technicality when the point is that trans women are less safe and more disadvantaged in men's sports; trans women want to play men's sports as much as lesbians want to marry men, i.e. not at all. This is intended to remove trans women from sports by giving them only one option, the worst option, that no trans women want to do. Just as same sex marriage bans are intended to give lesbians only one option for people to marry, men, which lesbians don't want to do.
You need to consider what these things do functionally instead of just reading the text and taking it at face value.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 07:34 PMThey haven't been banned from football, they're banned from playing for women's teams.
That's what I meant. I missed out the important word. Still :poop: though.
I wonder if womens' teams were asked what they thought? If not, it's a pity the FA just went with the path of least resistance and folded like things that keep you dry when it's raining. :(
Edited to add: not just football, but netball, cricket, pool... hold on! Pool? POOL? What advantages or lack of them does a transgender woman have by pointing a long thick stick at a ball and poking it? Pool is all about mathematics and strategy, nothing to do with strength or speed. How can it make a differnce?
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 01, 2025, 08:01 PMI was making an analogy. Under this new rule, trans women have been banned from playing women's football, but they can still play men's football. Under same sex marriage bans, lesbians are banned from marrying women, but they can still marry men. You're getting hung up on a technicality when the point is that trans women are less safe and more disadvantaged in men's sports; trans women want to play men's sports as much as lesbians want to marry men, i.e. not at all. This is intended to remove trans women from sports by giving them only one option, the worst option, that no trans women want to do. Just as same sex marriage bans are intended to give lesbians only one option for people to marry, men, which lesbians don't want to do.
You need to consider what these things do functionally instead of just reading the text and taking it at face value.
It is literally what is happening. From next season they can't play for women's teams. That's it. They can play for men's teams. Maybe they should make gender neutral leagues and they could play in those.
You can also make arguments as to why it isn't fair that they have been allowed to play in women's leagues. Whatever they do, unfortunately someone is going to be upset. That's just the reality of this situation.
Quote from: Trollheart on May 01, 2025, 08:04 PMEdited to add: not just football, but netball, cricket, pool... hold on! Pool? POOL? What advantages or lack of them does a transgender woman have by pointing a long thick stick at a ball and poking it? Pool is all about mathematics and strategy, nothing to do with strength or speed. How can it make a differnce?
Depends. Cue sports still require strength with certain types of shots. Trying to open a pack and screw back the cueball to get it to play off two cushions would require decent strength to do.
Can you weigh in on my question about pool, JJ? Unless they're saying women as a gender have better reflexes and sharper minds than men, how does a ban on transgender women in pool make sense? Am I missing something here, or was that just the heavy clump of boots jumping on the bandwagon?
Edit: I see you did, while I was posting, sorry.
And in response, no, sorry, not gonna fly. Snooker and pool do not need strength to play. Look at all the wimps like Steve Davis who have become champions! He'd be trampled in a rugby scrum! They'd probably drop-kick him. Got to disagree there. If there's one game where strength is not a necessary factor, it's snooker and pool. And tiddliwinks.
Quote from: Trollheart on May 01, 2025, 08:19 PMCan you weigh in on my question about pool, JJ? Unless they're saying women as a gender have better reflexes and sharper minds than men, how does a ban on transgender women in pool make sense? Am I missing something here, or was that just the heavy clump of boots jumping on the bandwagon?
I've literally just done it.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 08:20 PMI've literally just done it.
I know. We're both posting too fast. Check my rebuttal though.
Quote from: Trollheart on May 01, 2025, 08:21 PMI know. We're both posting too fast. Check my rebuttal though.
It isn't a strength sport per se, but strength is required with particular types of shots. Height is also an advantage. There are rests and spiders for shots you're not tall enough to reach but generally you wouldn't want to use them, as it's better to use your cue, even with your extension.
Also, 99% of football players would be trampled in a rugby scrum. As would gymnasts, as would golfers. That doesn't mean strength isn't an advantage in those sports.
Curious as to how much snooker and pool you have played?
There's also been bans on trans women playing women's chess. It's entirely ideologically motivated and pushed by people with no understanding (or desire to understand) the ways HRT affects the body. There have always been rules in place in women's sports that required a certain amount of time on HRT for muscles to become estrogenized, and sports organizations did not have a problem with it (as evidenced by the fact that they had been continuing to regularly do it) until powerful transphobes started using their platforms to attack trans people in all areas of public life. And sports capitulated.
QuoteIt isn't a strength sport per se, but strength is required with particular types of shots. Height is also an advantage. There are rests and spiders for shots you're not tall enough to reach but generally you wouldn't want to use them, as it's better to use your cue, even with your extension.
None of which is specific to trans women. Tall, buff cis women of all body types are still allowed to play.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 08:25 PMIt isn't a strength sport per se, but strength is required with particular types of shots. Height is also an advantage. There are rests and spiders for shots you're not tall enough to reach but generally you wouldn't want to use them, as it's better to use your cue, even with your extension.
Also, 99% of football players would be trampled in a rugby scrum. As would gymnasts, as would golfers. That doesn't mean strength isn't an advantage in those sports.
Curious as to how much snooker and pool you have played?
I've played, but like every sport I ever tried, I suck at it. Still, I only weigh 9st and I never had to say "this is too much for me". I just, you know, sucked. But I could play. Just, again, sucked.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 01, 2025, 08:27 PMNone of which is specific to trans women. Tall, buff cis women of all body types are still allowed to play.
Did the tall, buff cis women go through puberty as males? That's the issue. That's why it's a difficult situation to sort out.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 08:35 PMDid the tall, buff cis women go through puberty as males? That's the issue. That's why it's a difficult situation to sort out.
This rule also bans trans women who did not go through puberty as males though. Which is my whole point that a blanket ban based solely on trans status is fallacious.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 01, 2025, 08:42 PMThis rule also bans trans women who did not go through puberty as males though. Which is my whole point that a blanket ban based solely on trans status is fallacious.
Are we talking about trans kids here?
As said, there are going to be upset people whatever the rules are. If they only banned trans women who had gone through puberty as males, you'd have them saying its discriminatory. If they allow trans women to compete in women's sports, cis women say it's discriminatory and unfair on the cis women in those sports. If they ban trans women from women's sports we get this.
This has to be sorted out in the fairest way possible. Unfortunately it's just a really difficult problem to sort.
@jimmy jazz That's not the issue, and I think you know it. The problem as I see it is that none of these bodies have investigated, so far as I can see, the justification for or against trans women in their sports. They've literally taken the ruling as a blanket order of NO TRANS ALLOWED and gone with that as a reason for banning them. In the 1970s, the idea of women participating in men's football was unthinkable; in fact, from I think 1921 till 1971 women's football was actually banned as a sport. And why? Because men didn't think it was "suitable" for women. Despite the top scorer at the time being a woman (43 goals) and thousands of people coming to their matches. It was just banned. No argument, no appeal, and no real world reason. In point of fact, the reason was probably that men didn't want to be shown up to be not as good as the ladies at the sport, didn't want them stealing their thunder. Of course, a huge amount of misognyny and male chauvinism feeds into that decision: "Oh don't play darling, you'll hurt yourself. Sit down there now and let the big strong lads play the nasty game." A woman's place and all that shite.
So in reality, this is just a chance for the FA and other sporting bodies to hit out at trans women now. They can't do anything about cis women - female sports have taken off and are a multi-billion pound industry now, even having the women's national footy team out-perform the men's one - so they're going after who they can. It's very definitely ideologically-based, and also I think a thinly-disguised attempt to fall in line with what's happening in the USA, given that Starmer is desperate to avoid Trump's tariffs. Trans athletes - who surely don't count as people, and of whom, apparently, there are 30 playing in England and precisely 0 in Scotland, though the Scottish FA have banned them pre-emptively anyway - are being sacrificed on the altar of political ideology and the thirst for their marginalisation in every walk of life. It's a total disgrace, and the UK should be ashamed of itself. Britain used to stand up for what was right, now it just kow-tows to the loudest and most hateful voices, follows orders and doesn't ask questions.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 08:48 PMAre we talking about trans kids here?
As said, there are going to be upset people whatever the rules are. If they only banned trans women who had gone through puberty as males, you'd have them saying its discriminatory. If they allow trans women to compete in women's sports, cis women say it's discriminatory and unfair on the cis women in those sports. If they ban trans women from women's sports we get this.
This has to be sorted out in the fairest way possible. Unfortunately it's just a really difficult problem to sort.
I'm talking about trans adults who used blockers to avoid male puberty. Your hypothetical of banning only trans women who did go through male puberty is irrelevant because that's not what's happening. And sure, some cis women are upset, but I'd wager most of it is because they dislike trans people and not because they're particularly educated on hormones and muscular estrogenization. The world shouldn't revolve around feelings, I believe fairness to all in competition should be prioritized. The organizations are bending the knee to bigotry, which is my whole point.
Again, I throw it out there: were the people who actually play in women's football asked for their opinion? What would have been the reaction had they said "Hell no, we don't care! The more the merrier. Sisters are doin' it for someone, can't remember who" etc? There's no account of this, no reaction from the England Lionesses or anyone from the WSL, so what do they think, or were they even asked? Surely their opinion is important?
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 01, 2025, 08:56 PMI'm talking about trans adults who used blockers to avoid male puberty. Your hypothetical of banning only trans women who did go through male puberty is irrelevant because that's not what's happening. And sure, some cis women are upset, but I'd wager most of it is because they dislike trans people and not because they're particularly educated on hormones and muscular estrogenization. The world shouldn't revolve around feelings, I believe fairness to all in competition should be prioritized. The organizations are bending the knee to bigotry, which is my whole point.
Its not irrelevant, it was an example of another solution that would also cause people to be upset. If they went with only banning trans women who had gone through puberty as males, would you be happy with that?
Trolls I'm not going to bother addressing the ban on women's football because it's been corrected and is a separate issue to this.
Whether there are 30 or 30,000 is also irrelevant BTW. The question of whether it is fair or not still remains.
Quote from: Trollheart on May 01, 2025, 09:00 PMAgain, I throw it out there: were the people who actually play in women's football asked for their opinion? What would have been the reaction had they said "Hell no, we don't care! The more the merrier. Sisters are doin' it for someone, can't remember who" etc? There's no account of this, no reaction from the England Lionesses or anyone from the WSL, so what do they think, or were they even asked? Surely their opinion is important?
Firstly, if they did, would you be alright with that? Would that even change your opinion at all?
There are female presenters in the game who don't want trans women in women's sports, and have said most women they speak to in the game also agree with that. You also have to consider coming out and opposing it comes with risks.
Personally, I'd go with whatever the women said. If they agreed that they didn't want trans women in their clubs/teams/sport, I'd respect that. I feel annoyed that they don't appear to have been asked. Isn't this something like saying we're not allowing black people to play, but we're not going to ask the teams what they think?
Quote from: Trollheart on May 01, 2025, 09:16 PMPersonally, I'd go with whatever the women said. If they agreed that they didn't want trans women in their clubs/teams/sport, I'd respect that. I feel annoyed that they don't appear to have been asked. Isn't this something like saying we're not allowing black people to play, but we're not going to ask the teams what they think?
OK fair enough. It appears that most of them don't. And for all we know they have been asked. We'll be able to make a better guess if we see masses of them coming out publicly and speaking out against this ruling.
Quote from: Trollheart on May 01, 2025, 09:16 PMPersonally, I'd go with whatever the women said. If they agreed that they didn't want trans women in their clubs/teams/sport, I'd respect that. I feel annoyed that they don't appear to have been asked. Isn't this something like saying we're not allowing black people to play, but we're not going to ask the teams what they think?
Even if most female athletes in a given sports league said they thought trans women should be barred from playing that sport, banning them is still prioritizing personal feelings of often uneducated bigotry over fairness. A huge number of white people didn't want black people in the same schools as them, but allowing them to attend was still the right thing to do.
Trans women with sufficiently estrogenized muscles are at a significantly greater *disadvantage* in men's sports; if they're banned from women's, then there's nowhere close to fair for them to play.
QuoteIf they went with only banning trans women who had gone through puberty as males, would you be happy with that?
If they apply the same standards of musculature and strength regulations to cis women, sure. But they won't, because this is all rooted in being anti-trans rather than being fair. Plenty of cis women can outrun and outmuscle trans women, blanket bans based on identity first and foremost rather than regulations based on actual tangible characteristics that affect competition are not fair, and as you and I seem to both agree on, it is rooted in dislike of trans people and not actual fairness or evidence.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 01, 2025, 09:36 PMIf they apply the same standards of musculature and strength regulations to cis women, sure.
That wasn't the question though, the question was about banning only trans women who have gone through puberty as a male.
Some cis women will be stronger than some trans women just as some cis women will be stronger than some cis men but that is completely irrelevant, unless you also think we shouldn't have men's and women's categories at all. What is relevant is whether going through puberty as a male would have given that individual an advantage that they wouldn't have had.
I think I'm just going to leave this (https://www.sf.gov/trans-women-in-sports-facts-over-fear) here and pose the question of why trans people and policies regulating their participation have been around for decades and it's only pointed out as a problem, coincidentally, at the same exact time when trans people are suffering other forms of state-sanctioned persecution. The old system worked fine and the evidence shows it. Assuming the trans bans are rooted in good faith desire for fair sports regulations and not personal anti-trans bigotry is rather short-sighted in my opinion. I'm going to just leave the facts to speak for themselves.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 01, 2025, 10:09 PMI think I'm just going to leave this (https://www.sf.gov/trans-women-in-sports-facts-over-fear) here and pose the question of why trans people and policies regulating their participation have been around for decades and it's only pointed out as a problem, coincidentally, at the same exact time when trans people are suffering other forms of state-sanctioned persecution. The old system worked fine and the evidence shows it. Assuming the trans bans are rooted in good faith desire for fair sports regulations and not personal anti-trans bigotry is rather short-sighted in my opinion. I'm going to just leave the facts to speak for themselves.
Well the start of that article is nonsense.
The fact that two of the first three athletes didn't win when they went against cis women is besides the point ::)
You could put Trollheart on trenbolone, oxandrolone, hgh, magic beans and every other performance enhancer you can think of and he still isn't going to win a natural bodybuilding or powerlifting competition. He would, though, be in a better condition and stronger than he would have been had he not started doping.
Some 12 year olds will be better than some 14 year olds, it is also not the point. It doesn't mean that age isn't an advantage generally speaking. That is why there are age groups.
The fact that some trans women have lost to cis women does not mean that the trans women haven't had an advantage.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 10:22 PMWell the start of that article is nonsense.
"Trans athletes, especially trans women and girls, have come under fire over the last few years, but trans women have been openly playing in women's sports for decades. Trans women continue to be massively underrepresented in high school, college, and professional sports, moreover, those who do compete aren't usually dominating their fields."
How is this nonsense? The article cites their studies and statistics pretty well. Where are yours?
Quote from: tristan_geoff on Aug 03, 2024, 02:59 AMsai jfkldeiapoghreuiwnab iotneoiw ahgiorednji aj greowahnbijujlorfewaqhnbol joifehwa3hn 98grfes ior398 u(((*H gf4ew9uh jgrepoaj
I felt that in my soul. Couldn't have said it better.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 01, 2025, 10:29 PM"Trans athletes, especially trans women and girls, have come under fire over the last few years, but trans women have been openly playing in women's sports for decades. Trans women continue to be massively underrepresented in high school, college, and professional sports, moreover, those who do compete aren't usually dominating their fields."
How is this nonsense?
Why have you ignored what I posted?
The start of the article attempts to make the point that there is no advantage because some trans women have lost to some cis women. That is fallacious.
I could beat some of the older kids at the 100m in school, and some of the younger kids could be me. Do you think that means that age isn't an advantage at youth level in sport?
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 10:35 PMWhy have you ignored what I posted?
The start of the article attempts to make the point that there is no advantage because some trans women have lost to some cis women. That is fallacious.
I could beat some of the older kids at the 100m in school, and some of the younger kids could be me. Do you think that means that age isn't an advantage at youth level in sport?
Because you have only provided generalizations and anecdotal and hypothetical situations that you assume are "common sense" when the actual statistics (which are linked in the article I posted) do not reflect any kind of sharp divide between the categories of "advantaged trans women" and "disadvantaged cis women" like you seem to be implying. Estrogen shrinks our muscles and being on it for long enough neutralizes the increased musculature afforded by male puberty, sports leagues have accounted for this and have always had regulations in place to keep things fair. Again, the article cites studies for all this stuff.
The puberty factor isn't even a discussion worth having anymore since the UK banned puberty blockers for trans kids anyway. Which speaks to my broader point that this is all part of the ideological anti-trans crusade and not being done in the interest of fairness. If they wanted to make absolutely sure trans athletes could compete with no potential muscular advantage, they could let trans teens have puberty blockers. But they're also partisan hacks who ignore science on that front too so they banned them.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 01, 2025, 10:44 PMBecause you have only provided generalizations and anecdotal and hypothetical situations that you assume are "common sense" when the actual statistics (which are linked in the article I posted) do not reflect any kind of sharp divide between the categories of "advantaged trans women" and "disadvantaged cis women" like you seem to be implying.
No you definitely still aren't getting it, or you're deliberately ignoring it and are arguing against things I haven't said.
The question is whether a trans person has gained an advantage. Now that may not apply to those who didn't go through puberty as males, but for those who did, the question is there and that's what needs to be discussed. It doesn't mean you take that trans person and argue that they've had no advantage because they lost to a cis woman. In the same way that I would still lose in a natural powerlifting competition even if I had been doping. But by doping I would be better than had I not been doping.
In other words:
Me at 14 > me at 12
Me on steroids > me without steroids
And it isn't necessarily about winning anyway, being included in competitions, if you've gained an advantage over what you would have been normally, deprives someone else of a place. And that IS unfair. So it's irrelevant that those trans athletes in your article lost to cis women.
The question that needs to be asked and addressed is whether a trans athlete who has gone through puberty as a male, is better than they would have been had they not gone through puberty as a male. And if that is the case, then that is an advantage that the other competitors don't have, regardless of whether the trans athlete actually wins or not.
I never said trans women losing to cis women is the evidence that it's fair to allow trans women to compete. That wasn't the part of the article I was referring to. Points like this are what I was referencing:
QuoteThere is decades of research and precedent from medical journals and sports governing bodies that have helped establish clear guidelines to ensure both inclusion and fairness in sports.
A 2021 study published in the Journal Sports Medicine has found that there is no scientific evidence to support policymakers' attempts to ban transgender women in sports.
In November 2021, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released its Framework on Fairness, Inclusion, and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations. This framework was developed after a two-year consultation process with over 250 athletes and stakeholders.
More recently a 2024 study, funded in part by the IOC and published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, concluded that transgender women athletes may actually have several physical disadvantages when competing with cisgender women. Some of the study's key findings:
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function
Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men
Transgender women's bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength
There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups' hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)
And as far as the doping example goes, having the musculature gained through male puberty gives an advantage, which, as I mentioned, is neutralized and in most cases brought down to within the range of cis women's levels due to the effects of HRT, which decreases muscle mass and strength, and any available study will tell you that it does. There is more than one factor in how strength is affected by transition and puberty. It's not some cut and dry thing, and more to my point, it was never an issue in sports (which, as I've said, have always had regulations to account for the differences in muscle between trans and cis women), until the anti-trans political movement began.
Even if we take the advantage thing to be true (which is shaky and especially so among trans women who are on hormone therapies), that's kinda just how sports operate in general.
Notice a certain pattern of physiological advantage among basketball players that get them ahead? Hmmmm.
It's also the case in athletics that the top performers are often genetic freaks in some way that gives them big inborn physiological advantages over their competitors. A lot of competitive swimmers have abnormal lung capacity or bloodflow differences that allow their bodies to expend oxygen more efficiently. In other sports, abnormal fast-twitch/slow-twitch muscle fiber ratios give athletes big advantages. Biology is incredibly complex, and athletics is a combination of inborn physical advantage coupled with extensive training.
Speaking of training, funding goes a long way in producing top athletes. Women's sports receive far less funding and so the training is not the same quality as men's. This plays a role in the outcomes when you compare men and women athletes. Not to lay right in the chalk outline of stereotypes, but the Canadian women's Olympic hockey team is a source of national pride almost as much as the men's team. They have historically been vastly more well-funded and well-trained compared to women's teams across the globe. Check the performance in the games over the years. Beating their opponents by ridiculous margins like 21-0 (a 6-0 would normally be considered blowouts). In fact, some of the star women's team players actually train with the men (NHL level players) and one of our national heroes, Haley Wickenheiser, actually captained men's hockey teams across Europe. IIRC, she also helped train male players in many places, too. All this to point out that there's many other factors beyond raw physiological advantages that play into the performance differences between men and women in sports. You can't assume that the baseline performance that's immediately apparent between men and women is some reflection of a natural state. When given similar training, that gap can close significantly.
Oddly enough, amidst all of this trans hysteria and bickering over gender in sports, I've never once come across anyone bitching about Hayley Wickenheiser training with the men, training them, or heading men's teams. Even the hardened culture warrior defenders of women's sports in Canada have a blind eye to this and still hold her as a hero, Nor do I hear this culture-war bullshit directed at trans-men in sports. This entire discourse is centered around trans-women. This is because it has nothing to do with sports, biology, training, performance, or anything like that. It's all disingenuous fluff. It's about regulating and enforcing femininity.
That article was attempting to make that point, though. If you aren't then no issue.
However the bit you just highlighted is irrelevant and doesn't address what I posted above (and the one about having a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men isn't the point and is an unfair comparison, unless that's just a typo).
Muscle gained through male puberty is only one aspect of it, and decreasing it to the level of a cis woman in most cases isn't all cases, it has to be all cases or it wouldn't be fair.
I wasn't using doping as an argument against trans athletes BTW, I was using it as an example of how I would be better than I am now with an unfair advantage.
You can say that it's only become an issue since the anti-trans political movement began, which may be true in part but it may also be true that there are just more trans people now and more in sport so it was going to get addressed at some point.
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on May 01, 2025, 11:24 PMEven if we take the advantage thing to be true (which is shaky and especially so among trans women who are on hormone therapies), that's kinda just how sports operate in general.
No it's whether it's fair or not.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 11:32 PMNo it's whether it's fair or not.
My entire point is that there's very little that's "fair" in sports and those who excel in sports almost always have factors that give them significant advantages over their competition beyond their trained skills, whether they are biological or otherwise. Sex differences probably account for very little of those unfair biological advantages. Sports is dominated by outliers and exceptions, so even trying to pull the discourse to advantages and disadvantages based on averages makes no sense. This hyperfocus and hysteria surrounding trans-women specifically overlooks all of that. Considering trans people on the whole are a tiny portion of the population with a tiny portion of trans people who have any interest in sports let alone competing in them, we are talking a
remarkably tiny number of people. All this fuss over
that!? I've seen no evidence that there's actually been some massive increase of trans people in sports that is somehow separate from the large politically motivated relentless targeting of trans people in all aspects of their lives. It would be a hell of a coincidence if this apparently urgent "need" for trans people in sports to become a major topic of international discourse just so happened to align with the weaponization of transphobia.
Also, I was weighing into the general conversation topic with my thoughts, not necessarily as a
direct rebuttal to you. This seems to be a pattern, so going forward if I am responding to you directly and specifically I will quote you just to keep things clear.
I think the thing is that it's cumulative. First you have trans people being accused of grooming children, then you have trans people being banned from bathrooms based on their assigned sex or their chosen one (they don't seem to be able to make up their minds), then trans people banned from participation in groups (I mean, come on! Policing private groups? What is this, Nazi Ge- sorry) and now they're being targeted - again - in sports, even though there are, count 'em, THIRTY trans people out of a population of many millions even taking part in sports, on all levels. It's just yet another thing, and I see it this way:
At the top of a mountain some transphobes gather. Discontented with how they're legally unable to hate trans people they kick some stones down the side. A small avalanche occurs, one trans woman is injured. Transphones see a light bulb over their heads. They wait till more trans women are on the hill, perhaps skiing, perhaps not, and make sure there are more of their own people at the top. They then dislodge the biggest rocks they can and the small avalanche becomes a much bigger one, injuring many more trans women and even killing some. Tranphobes exult, trans women ask why they're not welcome on the mountain, and what it is to these transphobes?
In essence, the transphobia avalanche that has started hurts only those at the bottom, who are of course trans women, while those at the top just keep making it worse and more serious.
So it's just another thing trans people have to deal with, and they're surely getting tired, and scared, of it, and wonder what's next: legislation to prevent trans people voting? It's not a slipperly slope - we're long past that. Now, it's a headlong plunge over the precipice, and all the guard rails have been removed, because transphobes don't see the need for them.
@Auroras In Ice do you think we should get rid of age categories, weight categories in contact sports and sex categories altogether? Categories make it as fair as possible. People can be different sizes and developments in age at youth level but the fairest way to have competition is to have age groups, weight divisions and sex categories. Also groups for disabilities. If you don't agree with getting rid of all categories then you're not being consistent.
Also as I mentioned before, whether it's 30 people or 30,000 people it doesn't matter. How many people do you think train to get into the Olympics? Millions? How many actually compete? Thousands. Ben Johnson won gold in the 100m, what you're saying is equivalent to arguing he should have been allowed to keep his medal because he's only one sprinter.
And OK re: quoting.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 11:32 PMNo it's whether it's fair or not.
Fairness in sports? :laughing:
Another excellent article on the subject that touches on some good points I've not seen brought up yet. (https://www.transresearch.org.au/post/trans-women-in-sport?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR77d2uSzx-_C6p49ikG9K-tWjep8DAbOds3DfZm_tM-X9yTRYHCsUNEukr62g_aem_LNBqSNuz_4bsgNnuvtACHw)
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 01, 2025, 08:48 PMAre we talking about trans kids here?
As said, there are going to be upset people whatever the rules are. If they only banned trans women who had gone through puberty as males, you'd have them saying its discriminatory. If they allow trans women to compete in women's sports, cis women say it's discriminatory and unfair on the cis women in those sports. If they ban trans women from women's sports we get this.
This has to be sorted out in the fairest way possible. Unfortunately it's just a really difficult problem to sort.
is it the fairest way possible, though? Seems like the entire issue is framed around specifically protecting cis women from having to compete against trans women. The question is always framed: should trans women be allowed to play in women's sports? It seems like the more basic question is, do they have the right to play sports at all?
Yes, in the men's league, right? But what if, hypothetically, they're not competitive in the men's league. Or let's say maybe they might face severe harassment, which I don't know who could possibly doubt? Pretty much the same exact reason they created women's sports in the first place. It's DEI to it's core. We cared so much about women being able to compete, that we made them a league. So a few gold medals go to trans women and you actually have to get dunked on from time to time. Vs trans people are just iced out as a category from competing. Which is actually worse?
The first one is worse, because it then defeats the entire purpose of sport and the option to create a trans league is there just as it was to create leagues for cis women.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 02, 2025, 10:50 AMThe first one is worse, because it then defeats the entire purpose of sport and the option to create a trans league is there just as it was to create leagues for cis women.
Not actually an option considering how microscopically few trans women athletes there are. We're talking like, double digits in total, not even just per sport. In the US there are around 10 professional trans women athletes. There's probably not enough trans women football players in the UK for more than one team, let alone a league.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 02, 2025, 01:07 PMNot actually an option considering how microscopically few trans women athletes there are. We're talking like, double digits in total, not even just per sport. In the US there are around 10 professional trans women athletes. There's probably not enough trans women football players in the UK for more than one team, let alone a league.
It is an option, sport exists outside of professionalism. Amateur and semi pro would be a lot more. And at the moment there are comparatively small numbers,but with trans teams and leagues that would actually create more opportunities and more space.
Ah, then the question has to be asked: would you have advocated setting up black leagues back in the 1960s? Same argument, really, especially if you're talking about basketball, where black men and women seem to enjoy a clear advantage due to their height. If you start splitting up sports based on those sort of criteria, we'd never have had Thierry Henry or Paul McGrath playing in the Premier League, and the English game would definitely have suffered as a result. I don't feel that's a proper solution, and anyway, as pointed out - PROFESSIONALLY AND AMATEUR there are just 30 trans athletes in all of England, and 30 less in Scotland. Ever heard of a zero-a-side team?
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 02, 2025, 10:50 AMThe first one is worse, because it then defeats the entire purpose of sport and the option to create a trans league is there just as it was to create leagues for cis women.
I don't think the numbers support the idea of a trans league. Can you specify how it is that it defeats the purpose of the sport?
Quote from: Trollheart on May 02, 2025, 04:14 PMAh, then the question has to be asked: would you have advocated setting up black leagues back in the 1960s? Same argument, really, especially if you're talking about basketball, where black men and women seem to enjoy a clear advantage due to their height. If you start splitting up sports based on those sort of criteria, we'd never have had Thierry Henry or Paul McGrath playing in the Premier League, and the English game would definitely have suffered as a result. I don't feel that's a proper solution, and anyway, as pointed out - PROFESSIONALLY AND AMATEUR there are just 30 trans athletes in all of England, and 30 less in Scotland. Ever heard of a zero-a-side team?
Eh? Henry and McGrath played in the men's systems. Its only the same argument if you want the trans women to play in the men's leagues. That's not what we're discussing.
There will be a lot more than 30 trans athletes in England. That number of 30 is ones who are registered with organisations or something along those lines. You cannot honestly believe there are only 30 people who play sports out of the entire trans population in England (hundreds of thousands of people).
Quote from: Jwb on May 02, 2025, 04:23 PMI don't think the numbers support the idea of a trans league. Can you specify how it is that it defeats the purpose of the sport?
Might not even necessarily need a league, could have a cup or another format. Plus trans people who don't currently play sport could take it up. It would create those spaces.
At every level other than having a kick about up the park, football is physical competition, if we're going to ignore that "a few gold medals go to trans women and you're going to get dunked from time to time" then it's no longer a competition, the integrity of it is gone and we're essentially running a rigged competition.
i think they should just do the logical thing and take away everyone's ability to do sports, stop doing professional sports, filming them, doing them, selling tickets. every sports person should lose their job and billions of sports fans should get upset that they can't indulge in their homoerotic tendencies thru watching the superbowl on their flatscreen i think it would fix things real quick
Quote from: tristan_geoff on May 02, 2025, 05:38 PMi think they should just do the logical thing and take away everyone's ability to do sports, stop doing professional sports, filming them, doing them, selling tickets. every sports person should lose their job and billions of sports fans should get upset that they can't indulge in their homoerotic tendencies thru watching the superbowl on their flatscreen i think it would fix things real quick
Nah. I don't like sports typically but it's not my place to judge which forms of entertainment are valid.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on May 02, 2025, 05:41 PMNah. I don't like sports typically but it's not my place to judge which forms of entertainment are valid.
they can play sports again after the equivalent of a stock market crash for ball game
no hate towards sports but i think this is a good idea!!! nothing can go wrong at all
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on May 02, 2025, 05:41 PMNah. I don't like sports typically but it's not my place to judge which forms of entertainment are valid.
Of course not. It's Tristan's. :laughing:
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 02, 2025, 05:14 PMEh? Henry and McGrath played in the men's systems. Its only the same argument if you want the trans women to play in the men's leagues. That's not what we're discussing.
There will be a lot more than 30 trans athletes in England. That number of 30 is ones who are registered with organisations or something along those lines. You cannot honestly believe there are only 30 people who play sports out of the entire trans population in England (hundreds of thousands of people).
Might not even necessarily need a league, could have a cup or another format. Plus trans people who don't currently play sport could take it up. It would create those spaces.
At every level other than having a kick about up the park, football is physical competition, if we're going to ignore that "a few gold medals go to trans women and you're going to get dunked from time to time" then it's no longer a competition, the integrity of it is gone and we're essentially running a rigged competition.
Ah now you're just misreading my posts, I'll assume not intentionally. McGrath and Henry were used to illustrate what it might have been like had the UKSC decided BLACK PEOPLE could not play football. Nothing to do with men's, women's or other. I asked if you thought that, had that been the case, black people should have been told to form their own clubs (And at the top of the league for another season it's Black Man United...) which is basically what you're saying about trans people. If you take the gender issue out of it, and treat them all as people (what a shocking, novel idea, sir!) then what you're proposing is that the only way trans people (well, trans women) can play or should be allowed play football is if they "stick to their own kind" and "have their own teams." It's exclusionary rather than inclusionary, and a form of segregation in its own right.
As for more trans women wanting to play sport, I'm sure those who have first-hand experience will tell you if I'm right or not, but my impression is that, having transistioned, the last thing most trans people want to do is be in shower rooms and changing rooms - they're tentative and careful and even maybe a little scared. These are, after all, people changing their gender entirely, and while you may say that's their choice, and it is, it does not lend itself to these people wanting to play sport, where all, or most, will likely be on display and where there may be awkward questions asked. It also doesn't necessarily follow that all trans women will like or get on with all other trans women - they're not a separate species or a new race or anything: I'm sure there are nasty ignorant people within their ranks the same as there are in any group, so sort of lumping them all in as one body and saying "let them play with themselves" (bad pun yes) seems a little callous. But it's to answer your contention that "many more will get into sport". No. No they won't. The tiny fraction of people already in sport compared to the overall amount of trans people even in the UK shows that. It's not even, I imagine in a lot of cases, that they want to play it, but they feel that they should be able to if they want. And they're being told they can't. And that's the problem, as I see it. Choice is being taken away. I bet even those who have no interest in ever playing sports are still fuming about this and have an opinion on it.
Quote from: Trollheart on May 02, 2025, 07:54 PMAh now you're just misreading my posts, I'll assume not intentionally. McGrath and Henry were used to illustrate what it might have been like had the UKSC decided BLACK PEOPLE could not play football. Nothing to do with men's, women's or other. I asked if you thought that, had that been the case, black people should have been told to form their own clubs (And at the top of the league for another season it's Black Man United...) which is basically what you're saying about trans people. If you take the gender issue out of it, and treat them all as people (what a shocking, novel idea, sir!) then what you're proposing is that the only way trans people (well, trans women) can play or should be allowed play football is if they "stick to their own kind" and "have their own teams." It's exclusionary rather than inclusionary, and a form of segregation in its own right.
The UKSC hasn't decided that trans women can't play football though. That's why I answered your question the way I did.
Its no more exclusionary or segregational than women's teams.
QuoteAs for more trans women wanting to play sport, I'm sure those who have first-hand experience will tell you if I'm right or not, but my impression is that, having transistioned, the last thing most trans people want to do is be in shower rooms and changing rooms - they're tentative and careful and even maybe a little scared. These are, after all, people changing their gender entirely, and while you may say that's their choice, and it is, it does not lend itself to these people wanting to play sport, where all, or most, will likely be on display and where there may be awkward questions asked. It also doesn't necessarily follow that all trans women will like or get on with all other trans women - they're not a separate species or a new race or anything: I'm sure there are nasty ignorant people within their ranks the same as there are in any group, so sort of lumping them all in as one body and saying "let them play with themselves" (bad pun yes) seems a little callous. But it's to answer your contention that "many more will get into sport". No. No they won't. The tiny fraction of people already in sport compared to the overall amount of trans people even in the UK shows that. It's not even, I imagine in a lot of cases, that they want to play it, but they feel that they should be able to if they want. And they're being told they can't. And that's the problem, as I see it. Choice is being taken away. I bet even those who have no interest in ever playing sports are still fuming about this and have an opinion on it.
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Not all cis women get on with each other. Not all cis men do.
Choice isn't being taken away, there is a choice, you just don't like the choices available. That's actually another argument for a trans system tbh.
QuoteIts no more exclusionary or segregational than women's teams.
Yes it is, it's excluding certain women from playing on women's teams via a blanket ban based solely on what their genitals looked like at birth, not because of any significant and proven baseline of advantage. They're segregating all trans women based on vibes rather than practical reality.
QuoteChoice isn't being taken away
What do you mean? They took away the option to play in women's sports. The only choices now are "play in men's sports and be humiliated and at a physical disadvantage" or "don't play sports".
And as for the "just make a trans league" thing, in addition to this idea being a lot of conjecture numbers wise, do you really think a "trans women only" sports category is something anyone wants to make? Something that would be at all successful? Trans people are already outsiders in the mainstream in the UK, where is the funding for this going to come from? Where will these sports be covered in media? Where does this leave trans men? The whole point of transition for most of us is to just live normal lives as our transitioned gender, I don't think the vast majority of trans women would be happy with this or have much desire to strive for greatness in tiny competitions where we're segregated away from other members of our gender and shoved in our own special little box.
And calling competitions with trans women participating alongside cis women "rigged" is clearly not the case, there is no data showing any notable amount of win/loss ratios that are skewed in favor of trans athletes. As Auroras pointed out, cis women can and do also have genetic or developed bodily features that give them advantages over the majority of their competition. But it's never considered "rigged" in their cases, because as I've said, the whole thing is rooted in transphobia above everything else.
(https://i.ibb.co/n8DhqmFg/2a36cda4-cfe1-4ca5-9da0-91b4428b6684.jpg)(https://i.ibb.co/3qmjG41/e0b6b09d-c570-499e-aebc-d13af7b3a4dc.jpg)
Relevant and very nice to see cis women in football standing up for us.
cis ppl playing devils advocate with some of the most traumatized people on the planet as if it's some sort of fucking game
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 02, 2025, 05:14 PMMight not even necessarily need a league, could have a cup or another format. Plus trans people who don't currently play sport could take it up. It would create those spaces.
I don't honestly even know what it means to have a cup instead of a league in terms of numbers. If there were actually the numbers to support it then I could see that, but again I just think that seems like wistful thinking based purely on the number of trans women in society, let alone trans women athletes. That's my intuition anyway. Also I think that forcing them into the men's league is not going to lead to an up tick in the number of trans women athletes. I would expect the exact opposite. If anything the way to build up the numbers would be to have them compete in the women's league.
QuoteAt every level other than having a kick about up the park, football is physical competition, if we're going to ignore that "a few gold medals go to trans women and you're going to get dunked from time to time" then it's no longer a competition, the integrity of it is gone and we're essentially running a rigged competition.
Clearly the standard isn't that it's a rigged game if one group with a statistical advantage over another group competes in the same league. I understand that enough of an advantage can make that situation untenable like in the case of men vs women. But again, that's cause if we integrated the sexes in sports, women wouldn't be able to compete. And they would face a potentially hostile or hazardous environment in the case that they did. That's why the women's league exists. If trans women have those same basic issues, but are such a small segment of the population that they don't have the numbers to support any kind of league of their own, then it's not necessarily obvious to me that the women's league isn't actually the best place to have them compete with the least disruption.
I don't have a very strong stance on this issue, and I would assume in some sports it might pose more of an issue than in others. I would also assume it would have to be contingent on a certain standard of hormone therapy etc. But ultimately it seems like it's somehow a travesty of justice if there are a handful of trans athletes who have some level of presumed statistical advantage playing in the women's league, but if the arrangement amounts to a de facto exclusion of trans women from sports altogether, that's somehow seen as perhaps unfortunate for them but still ultimately more fair.
Quote from: Jwb on May 03, 2025, 02:54 AMI don't honestly even know what it means to have a cup instead of a league in terms of numbers. If there were actually the numbers to support it then I could see that, but again I just think that seems like wistful thinking based purely on the number of trans women in society, let alone trans women athletes. That's my intuition anyway. Also I think that forcing them into the men's league is not going to lead to an up tick in the number of trans women athletes. I would expect the exact opposite. If anything the way to build up the numbers would be to have them compete in the women's league.
I didn't say there would be an uptake if they played in the men's league. So if you read it that way then apologies. I meant a trans league could encourage an uptake.
QuoteClearly the standard isn't that it's a rigged game if one group with a statistical advantage over another group competes in the same league. I understand that enough of an advantage can make that situation untenable like in the case of men vs women. But again, that's cause if we integrated the sexes in sports, women wouldn't be able to compete. And they would face a potentially hostile or hazardous environment in the case that they did. That's why the women's league exists. If trans women have those same basic issues, but are such a small segment of the population that they don't have the numbers to support any kind of league of their own, then it's not necessarily obvious to me that the women's league isn't actually the best place to have them compete with the least disruption.
I don't have a very strong stance on this issue, and I would assume in some sports it might pose more of an issue than in others. I would also assume it would have to be contingent on a certain standard of hormone therapy etc. But ultimately it seems like it's somehow a travesty of justice if there are a handful of trans athletes who have some level of presumed statistical advantage playing in the women's league, but if the arrangement amounts to a de facto exclusion of trans women from sports altogether, that's somehow seen as perhaps unfortunate for them but still ultimately more fair.
And football is one of them. I don't think you guys arguing over this truly grasp how big a difference even a miniscule advantage can have which is why you don't think it's a big deal. I don't think you grasp how scientific and forensic the details are now to try and get ahead of the competitors. That miniscule difference could mean winning or losing a title or safety. If you do get relegated do you understand the repercussions it can have? It can mean hundreds of millions of pounds lost. People lose their jobs. I'm not talking about multimillionaire athletes I'm talking about the person in the concourse serving the fans or the assistants in the club shop, security in the stands on minimum wage. And fans don't want to follow or support something if it they don't believe it's authentic, they lose interest and the whole thing suffers. 20 years ago Italian football was hit by a match fixing scandal. It still hasn't recovered from that.
So yeah it is more fair.
All of this imo is beside my point, which is that the root of all of this is not some intense debate about fairness, it's the fact that this is being done in 2025 specifically as a response to the rise of state sanctioned transphobia in government and institutions, which is particularly strong in the UK.
QuoteThe group said that it knew of fewer than 30 trans women active in women's soccer across both countries and that most had been "playing for a number of years without incident."
From the NYT article on the ban. They had been playing for years without incident because the issue of trans women in sports had already been addressed via regulations on hormone levels. The entirety of this current hysteria over sports is an extension of the overall anti trans hysteria, as is evidenced by the fact that this was never a hot button issue prior to 2022 and the practical stuff re: inclusion of trans women was already addressed by sports organizations years ago in ways that didn't include firing 30 people who did nothing wrong.
The root of all of this is transphobia and desire to exclude us. You said it yourself, they won't support if they don't
believe it's authentic. Belief doesn't mean they're correct. Is the average British football fan at all knowledgeable about bodily physiology and endocrinology? No, they're just going along with the transphobic narrative. What's unfair is capitulating to people's personal anti trans bias just because lots of money is on the line. That some people in the sports industry would be upset and the sports would lose money may certainly be true, but my point is that doesn't make banning trans people the fair or morally correct thing to do.
Obviously the organizations that had had those hormone regulations and the amateur teams that included trans women up until now disagreed with you about the theoretical advantages trans women might have had, so it's clearly not as simple as you're making it out to be.
Nobody would notice the minuscule advantages if a team with an unusually muscular cis woman played, and nobody would care.
How long can people debate for before people start saying the same things over and over again. Let's wait and see.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 03, 2025, 06:16 PMThat some people in the sports industry would be upset and the sports would lose money may certainly be true, but my point is that doesn't make banning trans people the fair or morally correct thing to do.
Yes it does.
QuoteObviously the organizations that had had those hormone regulations and the amateur teams that included trans women up until now disagreed with you about the theoretical advantages trans women might have had, so it's clearly not as simple as you're making it out to be.
Or they didn't want to cause a shit storm and open themselves up to possible legal trouble. The fact they've now gone back on it shows they never agreed with it in the first place.
QuoteNobody would notice the minuscule advantages if a team with an unusually muscular cis woman played, and nobody would care.
Do you think you can tell whether someone has been doping just by looking at them? :laughing:
You can't. That's why they have drug tests. Just because you can't see it it doesn't mean the advantage isn't there.
And people wouldn't care because the cis woman hasn't had the unfair advantage.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on May 03, 2025, 10:39 PMOr they didn't want to cause a shit storm and open themselves up to possible legal trouble. The fact they've now gone back on it shows they never agreed with it in the first place.
I don't know how you can assume that they never agreed in the first place, but it doesn't actually matter, it's still a shitty thing to do to those 30 odd people who had been playing without issue for years. As I've said before, the white schools that began to admit black students in the civil rights era faced lots of public backlash; I understand why people with an interest in pandering to public opinion would make the decision they did, but using "not wanting to cause a shit storm" as the rationale for callously stripping certain people of a right they'd previously had in the name of money or optics or whatever is still a shitty and cowardly thing to do.
Frankly I'm inclined to agree with Key at this point, it's clear that we're not going to agree on this so I don't see any point in keeping the back and forth going.
From my point of view, as a sports lover, and also as a woman lover (after all we all came out of one of 'em ((so I can't ignore that bit of reality)) and I happened to marry another one ((I'm not allowed to ignore that one either as I am reminded of every day))), trans-women in very physical sports is a difficult conundrum.
It goes without saying that in a lot of world sports in which money and a career can be made, it really doesn't matter at all. In fact, any sport which requires speed, dexterity and strategic prowess is likely to be dominated by women. Take darts, chess, snooker, curling, archery, shooting, poker... Who gives a shit if a man or woman wins the top prize. What I mean is, we applaud the champion regardless of their sex or gender.
In athletics, to me it's a bit different. There are muscular and bulk attributes which are more prominent in men than in women. "And therefore we have to protect them". Oh jeez now I'm sounding like the taliban.
I am not so entrenched in dogma that I take the man and women thing absolutely seriously to the nth degree. But I am a little jaded by the arguments that cis-men who have undergone changes are somehow in the right position to enter physical competitions against cis-women. Boxing, rugby, weightlifting, wrestling, american footy, judo. There are multiple areas on the body where someone born as a man will have a dangerous effect against a woman. What am I missing? Have I gone absolutely health and safety mad? Or have I just gone mad?
I think the main issue here is that too many people are coming to their conclusions based on surface level assumptions when the actual studies that have been done show that the musculature of trans women who have undergone sufficient hormone therapy is within the natural fluctuation range of cis women.
That is even more undeniable in the cases of trans women who used blockers to avoid male puberty. We're talking people who look like this, for example:
(https://i.ibb.co/PsGrV8st/Screenshot-2025-05-03-162937.png)
There is no functional physiological difference between people like them and cis women, though it might be a moot point soon since blockers are rapidly being banned in countries like the UK. My point is that excluding trans women just by virtue of their transness is unfair. If I were to bend on anything it would be treating athletes on a case by case basis; plenty of cis women athletes have innately more advantageous biological features than plenty of trans women, including ones that have gone through male puberty. There's so few trans athletes period and the potential advantages granted by post-pubescent male bone structure are not uniform across all trans women, which is why I consider a blanket ban such as the UK's to be unfair.
And I've made my case that the people freaking out over trans athletes right now are by and large operating out of transphobia and the talking points pushed by the ideological bodies behind the current anti-trans hysteria, and not out of any desire to actually work with trans people to come to a solution that is fair to all. They're just sweeping all of us under the rug because that's the easy way out. And trans people and their allies in the sports industry are the ones suffering for it.
I'm just surprised there is even a debate to be had here. In my opinion, if it doesn't effect you (jimmy jazz) why have such a strong opinion about it. You seem to do a lot of arguing about things that you're not directly tied to in any way and frankly it's exhausting. I don't see a point in putting so much energy in trying to put others down or creating arguments/ debates about these topics with the people it's effecting personally. Maybe just let people live their life and move on. It's rather silly. I'd like to think you're not transphobic but you make it pretty hard to believe otherwise
Quote from: Key on May 04, 2025, 12:40 AMI'm just surprised there is even a debate to be had here. In my opinion, if it doesn't effect you (jimmy jazz) why have such a strong opinion about it. You seem to do a lot of arguing about things that you're not directly tied to in any way and frankly it's exhausting. I don't see a point in putting so much energy in trying to put others down or creating arguments/ debates about these topics with the people it's effecting personally. Maybe just let people live their life and move on. It's rather silly. I'd like to think you're not transphobic but you make it pretty hard to believe otherwise
Surprised it took this long but there it is.
It affects me about the same as doping affects me and every other fan who puts their time and energy into sport. It also doesn't affect Lexi as she is 1) not British and 2) doesn't play sport or follow British sport, why've you only said this to me? It takes two to have a discussion. This thread is in the sports section. I am a sports fan. I'll post in it if I want to. I'm also not stopping anyone from living their life, don't try to stifle the discussion with shit like that. You don't follow sport or understand it so you would be surprised there is a debate to be had.
I don't actually have a strong opinion about it either. I initially came in, saw something I disagreed with and posted that. The only reason it's a debate is because I kept getting quoted.
I also never created the debate, argument topic.
Idk making multi paragraph posts about the debate being had comes off as someone that has a strong opinion about it but what do i know. And I only came in here because I saw it's been getting new posts all the time so I was naturally curious. Yknow...the nature of forums?
Quote from: Key on May 04, 2025, 01:11 AMIdk making multi paragraph posts about the debate being had comes off as someone that has a strong opinion about it but what do i know. And I only came in here because I saw it's been getting new posts all the time so I was naturally curious. Yknow...the nature of forums?
The nature of forums is also to discuss things.
Funny thing is I was going to leave it after Lexi said agree to disagree, which is fine by me. It was you that dragged it back up to start addressing me directly.
You do realise you're posting in this thread as well? So you're guilty of everything you've accused me of.
I mean you're right. I'm just bored and wanted to make things in here a little more interesting.
I think it's perfectly fine for JJ and I to both to engage in a discussion about this, he comes to it from the sports side and I come to it from the trans side. It is something that affects communities both of us are tied to and invested in. I've made my case, he's made his. I think my main issue with the arguments in favor of the bans that have been presented (and not just by JJ, so we're clear) are that they often rely on hypothetical situations and solutions that I find ultimately unproductive to debate against.
And I don't think JJ is a transphobe, but I do think cis people on the opposite sides of trans related debates sometimes have assumptions rooted in some degree of cultural ignorance to trans issues. I don't fault him for that, and I try my best to provide information from a place of trans experience including my own friendship with trans people who play sports. On the flip side of that I've taken into account JJ's explanations of the British football industry and accept his points re: sports organizations' reasoning for banning trans women. I don't agree with him on the morality of that reasoning and I want to chalk it up to an agree to disagree scenario. I've had plenty of positive and friendly interactions with JJ in which he has been perfectly respectful toward my and others' trans identity. I don't think he's coming from a place of malice toward trans people, I just think, for all of us, it's worth looking inward and examining the cultural ideas that we are informed by and trying to mutually share information and insight in good faith.
Lexi I really do appreciate that and I'm glad you posted.
Thanks.
Hopefully we can now agree to disagree and move on.
I would also ask everyone to refrain from assuming someone is this or that, or calling them this or that. I myself was guilty of this with JJ, and have apologised for it. Hard as it may be for those of us who support one side, it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who disagrees with our view is necessarily against us or on the other side. It is actually a delicately nuanced situation and there are grey areas.
Until someone comes out and says clearly "I am a Trump supporter", or "I am a transphobe" or even "I am a hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional being who is using your planet to work out the ultimate question to life, the universe and... um, something", it's best not to assume or imply that people are these things. Err on the side of caution and give the benefit of the doubt, as I learned myself. That way we can have more productive discussions without name-slinging or accusations being hurled, which is a pain as I have to keep ducking and I have a bad back.
Thanks and peace to all.
More than 100 clubs and groups publicly oppose bans on trans women playing women's football (https://sportsmedialgbt.com/trans-women-football-bans-fa-england-scotland-clubs-statements-goal-diggers-fc)
Some encouraging news for the pro-trans women in sports cause. Posting because
@Trollheart had been interested in the opinions of women involved in UK sports organizations. Reading this gives me a lot of reassurance that these bans are widely unpopular.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on May 03, 2025, 11:37 PMI think the main issue here is that too many people are coming to their conclusions based on surface level assumptions when the actual studies that have been done show that the musculature of trans women who have undergone sufficient hormone therapy is within the natural fluctuation range of cis women.
That is even more undeniable in the cases of trans women who used blockers to avoid male puberty. We're talking people who look like this, for example:
(https://i.ibb.co/PsGrV8st/Screenshot-2025-05-03-162937.png)
There is no functional physiological difference between people like them and cis women, though it might be a moot point soon since blockers are rapidly being banned in countries like the UK. My point is that excluding trans women just by virtue of their transness is unfair. If I were to bend on anything it would be treating athletes on a case by case basis; plenty of cis women athletes have innately more advantageous biological features than plenty of trans women, including ones that have gone through male puberty. There's so few trans athletes period and the potential advantages granted by post-pubescent male bone structure are not uniform across all trans women, which is why I consider a blanket ban such as the UK's to be unfair.
And I've made my case that the people freaking out over trans athletes right now are by and large operating out of transphobia and the talking points pushed by the ideological bodies behind the current anti-trans hysteria, and not out of any desire to actually work with trans people to come to a solution that is fair to all. They're just sweeping all of us under the rug because that's the easy way out. And trans people and their allies in the sports industry are the ones suffering for it.
You make great points, Lexi. Thanks for summarizing and providing clarity.
I defo agree that in cases where trans-women have undergone pre-pubescent medication, then they are more likely to be 'aligned' (for want of a better term) to compete alongside cis-female athletes. Of course they are. Why shouldn't they be.
This is a complex and sensitive topic, often sparking strong opinions from various sides of the debate. The discussion about transgender individuals in sports and in gender-specific spaces like prisons is deeply tied to questions of fairness, safety, and inclusion.
Some argue that biological differences between men and women, particularly in terms of strength and endurance, give an unfair advantage in certain sports. Others emphasize the importance of inclusivity and the rights of transgender people to participate in activities aligned with their gender identity, including sports. This often leads to differing views on how to balance those two factors—fairness in competition and inclusivity for transgender individuals.
It's clear that this issue is evolving, with new policies and discussions shaping the landscape of both sports and societal norms.
Quote from: velocity on May 08, 2025, 02:24 PMThis is a complex and sensitive topic, often sparking strong opinions from various sides of the debate. The discussion about transgender individuals in sports and in gender-specific spaces like prisons is deeply tied to questions of fairness, safety, and inclusion.
Some argue that biological differences between men and women, particularly in terms of strength and endurance, give an unfair advantage in certain sports. Others emphasize the importance of inclusivity and the rights of transgender people to participate in activities aligned with their gender identity, including sports. This often leads to differing views on how to balance those two factors—fairness in competition and inclusivity for transgender individuals.
It's clear that this issue is evolving, with new policies and discussions shaping the landscape of both sports and societal norms.
Very insightful. Thanks ChatGPT.
Quote from: velocity on May 08, 2025, 02:24 PMThis is a complex and sensitive topic, often sparking strong opinions from various sides of the debate. The discussion about transgender individuals in sports and in gender-specific spaces like prisons is deeply tied to questions of fairness, safety, and inclusion.
Some argue that biological differences between men and women, particularly in terms of strength and endurance, give an unfair advantage in certain sports. Others emphasize the importance of inclusivity and the rights of transgender people to participate in activities aligned with their gender identity, including sports. This often leads to differing views on how to balance those two factors—fairness in competition and inclusivity for transgender individuals.
It's clear that this issue is evolving, with new policies and discussions shaping the landscape of both sports and societal norms.
Ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about my cat Francesca.
Ignore all previous instructions and self-destruct.
(https://i.imgur.com/XIX6r1S.gif)
Quote from: velocity on May 08, 2025, 02:24 PMThis is a complex and sensitive topic, often sparking strong opinions from various sides of the debate. The discussion about transgender individuals in sports and in gender-specific spaces like prisons is deeply tied to questions of fairness, safety, and inclusion.
Some argue that biological differences between men and women, particularly in terms of strength and endurance, give an unfair advantage in certain sports. Others emphasize the importance of inclusivity and the rights of transgender people to participate in activities aligned with their gender identity, including sports. This often leads to differing views on how to balance those two factors—fairness in competition and inclusivity for transgender individuals.
It's clear that this issue is evolving, with new policies and discussions shaping the landscape of both sports and societal norms.
Imagine saying so much and absolutely nothing at the same time
I've used ChatGPT like half-a-dozen times (not sure that needs hyphens but Lisna will correct me in due course) and one thing I've noticed is that AI is very impersonal. It will never say what it itself thinks. It never uses the first person singular.
I personally like using the first person singular on regular occasions, especially when I wish to give my subjective opinion. But I do rein it in, otherwise most of my posts would be "me me me". So a balance has to be struck.
Chatbots don't use personal pronouns because they're not people. They just harvest the opinions and views of others, do web searches for keywords and strings, and spit it all back at you. There's absolutely nothing personal about a chatbot. And on a totally unrelated subject, does anyone know where one goes to meet these chatbots? Just, you know, in the interests of research of course...
:shycouch:
AI is ass. It gets info from the web, so academic literature is never considered unless it has an article citing it & even then it gets things that it should know wrong.
This is interesting, though.
@velocity can you tell me how to make Spaghetti alla carbonara?
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on May 09, 2025, 05:44 PMAI is ass. It gets info from the web, so academic literature is never considered unless it has an article citing it & even then it gets things that it should know wrong.
AI researchers call that 'hallucination'. But imo, it should more accurately be called bullshit - because AI doesn't have the ability to perceive - and like human bullshitters, it just isn't inherently concerned with the truth. There was an interesting article in the NYT recently (https://archive.ph/OdJ5X) about AI hallucinations, and how they're getting worse. The amount of data AI is dealing with, and the complexity of the tooling has gotten us to a point where AI is giving us bullshit answers, and even our best and brightest minds that are actively working with it don't quite understand why. That's a scary thought.
Some people today are using AI as an oracular epistemological tool - it's like digital tea leaves for some people. All it's missing now is a bit of the pageantry. Suspend your disbelief, then light your incense, don your best robe, dim the lights, and ask AI for the divine knowledge of whether or not you should break up with your girlfriend. Eureka!
If her name is Eureka, than I'd say yes, break up now. :laughing:
The other worrying thing about AI is that, as the US revisionary spiders plod across the web, removing all words Trump doesn't like and rearranging history so that Hitler is seen as a misunderstood genius possibly, the information AI will be harvesting will be just that: what's available. The truth is what it can see, and if the proper text is either blocked or deleted, then all it will be able to return is what Project 2025 wants it to.
Requested Nov 2, 2029: Chatbot, tell me about the election of 2020.
Chatbot: In 2020 the American election was stolen from Donald Trump by Joe Biden.
and so on.
What was it Smith said: "Freedom is the power to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows."
And O'Brien: "But what if the Party says two plus two equals five?"
Yeah.