flipdewaf wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Ifs/ands/buts are well beyond the basic biological reality. And nobody was talking about cancers that affect both sexes, that's completely immaterial to the discussion. As you may remember, the discussion is about differences in cardiovascular capacity and therefore athletic ability for swimmers. That will not change via anything you have mentioned - the biology remains the same.

Rob was talking about pap smears which is a test for cervical cancer.

Every person is built different. Some people are lean and large, some people are lean and small. Some people build themselves for swimming, some people build themselves for hockey. Look at the build and speed of Bonnie Blair, Olympic medal speed skater. How do we know she is not trans? She was consistently blowing everyone away.

Are you suggesting removing all sex categorisation from sport?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How about, instead of a third "trans" category, which everyone will hate, let's have "anyone can compete". So, the winners of the men's and women's or top four of each. If a man wants to compete in balance beam or if a women's volleyball team wants to compete, there should be an extra category for that. But, again, "separate but equal" will not and does not work.

seb146 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Rob was talking about pap smears which is a test for cervical cancer.

Every person is built different. Some people are lean and large, some people are lean and small. Some people build themselves for swimming, some people build themselves for hockey. Look at the build and speed of Bonnie Blair, Olympic medal speed skater. How do we know she is not trans? She was consistently blowing everyone away.

Are you suggesting removing all sex categorisation from sport?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How about, instead of a third "trans" category, which everyone will hate, let's have "anyone can compete". So, the winners of the men's and women's or top four of each. If a man wants to compete in balance beam or if a women's volleyball team wants to compete, there should be an extra category for that. But, again, "separate but equal" will not and does not work.

So we get rid of womens sport? So to prevent hurting the feelings people who can’t tell the difference between gender and sex we should marginalise all female athletes? Hilarious. The march of inclusion.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

So we get rid of womens sport? So to prevent hurting the feelings people who can’t tell the difference between gender and sex we should marginalise all female athletes? Hilarious. The march of inclusion.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This would be the absolute death of women’s sports, outside of those that are scored by judges.

The US women’s soccer team, often touted as the best in the world…previously they’d play warm up games against high school boys teams. They’d routinely lose.

Or for individual sports…the best women’s tennis players usually don’t compare to any ranked male players. Awhile back, both Williams sisters lost to a man ranked outside the top 200, and it wasn’t even close.

Or the funniest example…the time Artie Lange almost beat an NCAA champion womens basketball player. Artie prepped for the match up by getting drunk and presumably doing some mix of drugs.


Once you get outside the realm of children and intramurals, athletes aren’t competing just for the fun of it. They want to be the best. Mixed gender sports would lead to them full of the top women, and a bunch of men who couldn’t quite cut it but are still probably better than most, if not all of the women

Republican Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis makes an official Governor's Declaration that Florida resident Emma Weyant won the swimming event and is the NCAA Champion, not Lia Thomas https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk ... uxbndlbing
As I have discussed earlier here and elsewhere, trans persons have become the latest target of the Conservative politicians to try to win voters in this fall's elections. Sadly this is a pattern, Republicans find some social issue that is a distraction from dealing with real issues as well as very difficult for Democrats to challenge as seen as taking a 'liberal godless radical' view to voters. In the past it was gay marriage, if politicians wore American flag pins and flew a lot of American flags at rallies, anything to make Democrats look 'Un-american', 'immoral', against White people.

ltbewr wrote:

Republican Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis makes an official Governor's Declaration that Florida resident Emma Weyant won the swimming event and is the NCAA Champion, not Lia Thomas https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk ... uxbndlbing
As I have discussed earlier here and elsewhere, trans persons have become the latest target of the Conservative politicians to try to win voters in this fall's elections.

"The Left" gave him the ammunition. I detest DeSantis but he's not wrong.

drew777 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Republican Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis makes an official Governor's Declaration that Florida resident Emma Weyant won the swimming event and is the NCAA Champion, not Lia Thomas https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk ... uxbndlbing
As I have discussed earlier here and elsewhere, trans persons have become the latest target of the Conservative politicians to try to win voters in this fall's elections.

"The Left" gave him the ammunition. I detest DeSantis but he's not wrong.

+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Are you absolutely sure about that?

https://blog.apicha.org/what-to-know-ab ... l%20cancer.

Depending on how invasive the bottom surgery is, they could still need these checks. Oh, and breast cancer happens in both genders, regardless of how they identify and present. Cis men do get breast cancer, so let's just don't even start with that.

Ifs/ands/buts are well beyond the basic biological reality. And nobody was talking about cancers that affect both sexes, that's completely immaterial to the discussion. As you may remember, the discussion is about differences in cardiovascular capacity and therefore athletic ability for swimmers. That will not change via anything you have mentioned - the biology remains the same.

Rob was talking about pap smears which is a test for cervical cancer.

Every person is built different. Some people are lean and large, some people are lean and small. Some people build themselves for swimming, some people build themselves for hockey. Look at the build and speed of Bonnie Blair, Olympic medal speed skater. How do we know she is not trans? She was consistently blowing everyone away.

Bonnie Blair has two children and in 2021 Blair spoke out in opposition to allowing male-to-female transgender athletes to participate in organized athletics.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/pol ... 886655002/

Nice try Seb, but a huge fail.

The easiest way to solve the problem is to add a trans category to the para games. Trans men and trans women could possibly compete against each other.

seb146 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Rob was talking about pap smears which is a test for cervical cancer.

Every person is built different. Some people are lean and large, some people are lean and small. Some people build themselves for swimming, some people build themselves for hockey. Look at the build and speed of Bonnie Blair, Olympic medal speed skater. How do we know she is not trans? She was consistently blowing everyone away.

Are you suggesting removing all sex categorisation from sport?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How about, instead of a third "trans" category, which everyone will hate, let's have "anyone can compete". So, the winners of the men's and women's or top four of each. If a man wants to compete in balance beam or if a women's volleyball team wants to compete, there should be an extra category for that. But, again, "separate but equal" will not and does not work.

No Seb, just no. Separate works if the category itself is equal - hence men have their sports, and women have theirs. No reason trans athletes can't also have theirs.

Seb, how about we stop talking about 'male' and 'female' sports and use chromosome qualification instead? If you have XX chromosomes you compete in the XX category and if you have XY chromosomes you compete in the XY category. Would that make you happy?

flipdewaf wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Ifs/ands/buts are well beyond the basic biological reality. And nobody was talking about cancers that affect both sexes, that's completely immaterial to the discussion. As you may remember, the discussion is about differences in cardiovascular capacity and therefore athletic ability for swimmers. That will not change via anything you have mentioned - the biology remains the same.

Rob was talking about pap smears which is a test for cervical cancer.

Every person is built different. Some people are lean and large, some people are lean and small. Some people build themselves for swimming, some people build themselves for hockey. Look at the build and speed of Bonnie Blair, Olympic medal speed skater. How do we know she is not trans? She was consistently blowing everyone away.

Are you suggesting removing all sex categorisation from sport?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think the point is that being born male is just one of many advantages one could have in sports.

Then the question is, to what extent does a transition offset the advantages of a birth sex? Or disadvantage in case of a male born female?
10%, 50%, 90%? I have no clue.

How does it compare to the expected differentiation in people's genetic build? How likely is it really for a transgender to top people born female? To what extent do they need less talent and dedication to come out best? Is this a marginal difference? Or could an averagely talented transgender win any female competition hands down with half the training & dedication?

I have no clue. And I don't know how to have this discussion without knowing these answers.

One thing I dare guess, if say Michael Phelps had hormone therapy and surgery, a full transition, he would have won 0 olympic medals in male events. "Michelle Phelps" would have won those medals in the female category, but would she have won more than an imaginary twin sister? And to what extent?
I have no clue and perhaps gut feeling says that Michelle would have beaten her twin sister hands down, but gut feeling usually is a poor advisor.

AeroVega wrote:

Seb, how about we stop talking about 'male' and 'female' sports and use chromosome qualification instead? If you have XX chromosomes you compete in the XX category and if you have XY chromosomes you compete in the XY category. Would that make you happy?

My youngest daughter is not a full XX, it's called Turner syndrome. Since she doens't have any Y, she's 100% female. But she's not a full XX. Turner syndrome is a disadvantage, but nevertheless she's twice made it to 3rd place in national youth championships in her sports.

So, I don't agree with XX and XY category, because it would also exclude people with genuine love and deditcation for the sports.
Or would you redefine your categories to "XX and XY or what comes closest as long as it isn't an advantage"

Jalap wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Seb, how about we stop talking about 'male' and 'female' sports and use chromosome qualification instead? If you have XX chromosomes you compete in the XX category and if you have XY chromosomes you compete in the XY category. Would that make you happy?

My youngest daughter is not a full XX, it's called Turner syndrome. Since she doens't have any Y, she's 100% female. But she's not a full XX. Turner syndrome is a disadvantage, but nevertheless she's twice made it to 3rd place in national youth championships in her sports.

So, I don't agree with XX and XY category, because it would also exclude people with genuine love and deditcation for the sports.
Or would you redefine your categories to "XX and XY or what comes closest as long as it isn't an advantage"

It seems your sarcasm detector was turned off.

The above issue illustrates the issue and each person brings with them a complex personality. To put it down to genetics or any simple solution is not understanding the problem at all. And unless we sit down and talk with the people in context to really listen to what they are saying, we won't find the answers. I liked @Jalap's curiosity as he asked genuine questions and those are the questions that have never been asked. A friend of a friend dated a woman for 3-4 years and while she was a woman by gender and genetics, emotionally she was a man. And that gentleman knew their emotional issues. Later on, they went abroad and changed their gender. Now he is Mr. X . And the former lover became best friend .

I am not sure what pronoun they use hence using they/there till I know better. Almost a decade of watching that saga and the struggles so I can understand some of the concerns, not all.

flipdewaf wrote:

seb146 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Are you suggesting removing all sex categorisation from sport?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How about, instead of a third "trans" category, which everyone will hate, let's have "anyone can compete". So, the winners of the men's and women's or top four of each. If a man wants to compete in balance beam or if a women's volleyball team wants to compete, there should be an extra category for that. But, again, "separate but equal" will not and does not work.

So we get rid of womens sport? So to prevent hurting the feelings people who can’t tell the difference between gender and sex we should marginalise all female athletes? Hilarious. The march of inclusion.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think an “inclusive” thing to do is gather a wide variety of perspectives on gender and what a man or woman is. Each person in Manhattan gets one vote. Each person in India, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Europe, Idaho and every place gets one vote. THAT’s inclusion. What will that vote say? How to people really feel about gender? Not just people in Manhattan or San Francisco, but much more broadly? The world has 8 billion people. I think their perspectives are more or less equally important. There are many fascinating views out there.

Aaron747 wrote:

Jalap wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Seb, how about we stop talking about 'male' and 'female' sports and use chromosome qualification instead? If you have XX chromosomes you compete in the XX category and if you have XY chromosomes you compete in the XY category. Would that make you happy?

My youngest daughter is not a full XX, it's called Turner syndrome. Since she doens't have any Y, she's 100% female. But she's not a full XX. Turner syndrome is a disadvantage, but nevertheless she's twice made it to 3rd place in national youth championships in her sports.

So, I don't agree with XX and XY category, because it would also exclude people with genuine love and deditcation for the sports.
Or would you redefine your categories to "XX and XY or what comes closest as long as it isn't an advantage"

It seems your sarcasm detector was turned off.

Regardless, it was interesting to learn about Turner syndrome. And quite an achievement of your daughter, Jalap, you must be proud of her.

flipdewaf wrote:

drew777 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Republican Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis makes an official Governor's Declaration that Florida resident Emma Weyant won the swimming event and is the NCAA Champion, not Lia Thomas https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk ... uxbndlbing
As I have discussed earlier here and elsewhere, trans persons have become the latest target of the Conservative politicians to try to win voters in this fall's elections.

"The Left" gave him the ammunition. I detest DeSantis but he's not wrong.

+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The "left" gave him the ammunition by simply existing. Conservatives have been trying to erase the LGBTQ community forever and this is just a new avenue for them to try generations old tactics.

She's also lost several races--what does the governor declare in those races?

MaverickM11 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

drew777 wrote:

"The Left" gave him the ammunition. I detest DeSantis but he's not wrong.

+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The "left" gave him the ammunition by simply existing. Conservatives have been trying to erase the LGBTQ community forever and this is just a new avenue for them to try generations old tactics.

She's also lost several races--what does the governor declare in those races?

This is 100% incorrect, conservatives have no desire to erase the LGBTQ+ community. Remarks like this are exactly why there is a huge divide in the county, but please keep blaming conservatives.

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The "left" gave him the ammunition by simply existing. Conservatives have been trying to erase the LGBTQ community forever and this is just a new avenue for them to try generations old tactics.

She's also lost several races--what does the governor declare in those races?

This is 100% incorrect, conservatives have no desire to erase the LGBTQ+ community. Remarks like this are exactly why there is a huge divide in the county, but please keep blaming conservatives.

Recent State Legislative Laws would disagree with you.

Especially in Texas.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/25/10887437 ... btq-rights

An annual Pride Week celebration in Austin schools is breaking state law, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said this week, marking the state's latest move to confront LGBTQ rights. The school district said the events will nevertheless continue.

Every year, the Austin Independent School District plans a series of events to celebrate LGBTQIA+ students, highlighting "the district's commitment to creating a safe, supportive and inclusive environment."

Paxton's attack makes it very clear that what the GOP is after.

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The "left" gave him the ammunition by simply existing. Conservatives have been trying to erase the LGBTQ community forever and this is just a new avenue for them to try generations old tactics.

She's also lost several races--what does the governor declare in those races?

This is 100% incorrect, conservatives have no desire to erase the LGBTQ+ community. Remarks like this are exactly why there is a huge divide in the county, but please keep blaming conservatives.

The GOP platform is totally clear on this, and rolling back LGBTQ rights is on deck after rolling back abortion. Conservatives are already policing books and speech across the country they deem "inappropriate", ie LGBTQ, and in Texas are hunting trans children down for decisions they make with their parents and doctors. *You* may not have any desire to erase the LGBTQ community but conservatives absolutely do. Just witness the commentary on conservative gay Dave Rubin's announcement of having children via surrogacy with his married (also 100% opposed to the GOP platform) partner:

https://twitter.com/KnowNothingTV/statu ... 5Wmv3PT5Eg

Or Ronna McDaniel having to walk back her attendance at a log cabin repbulican event:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/oklahoma- ... tq-support

LGBQT are clearly not welcome in conservative spaces, and nothing has changed that story in decades. Reagan was probably more accepting than today's GOP.

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The "left" gave him the ammunition by simply existing. Conservatives have been trying to erase the LGBTQ community forever and this is just a new avenue for them to try generations old tactics.

She's also lost several races--what does the governor declare in those races?

This is 100% incorrect, conservatives have no desire to erase the LGBTQ+ community. Remarks like this are exactly why there is a huge divide in the county, but please keep blaming conservatives.

It’s cute that you apparently believe this, but GOP passed legislation really doesn’t support that view. If you need to ask “What legislation?”, then you’re even more out of touch than you realise.

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

The "left" gave him the ammunition by simply existing. Conservatives have been trying to erase the LGBTQ community forever and this is just a new avenue for them to try generations old tactics.

She's also lost several races--what does the governor declare in those races?

This is 100% incorrect, conservatives have no desire to erase the LGBTQ+ community. Remarks like this are exactly why there is a huge divide in the county, but please keep blaming conservatives.

It’s cute that you apparently believe this, but GOP passed legislation really doesn’t support that view. If you need to ask “What legislation?”, then you’re even more out of touch than you realise.

I honestly don't know why I even try. This board is such an echo chamber and anyone with a descending opinion. Or point of view is quickly attacked. Sure, all conservatives want to erase the LGBTQ+ community. If you don't see the idiocy in that statement, you sir are out of touch.

Dueces

bpatus297 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

This is 100% incorrect, conservatives have no desire to erase the LGBTQ+ community. Remarks like this are exactly why there is a huge divide in the county, but please keep blaming conservatives.

It’s cute that you apparently believe this, but GOP passed legislation really doesn’t support that view. If you need to ask “What legislation?”, then you’re even more out of touch than you realise.

I honestly don't know why I even try. This board is such an echo chamber and anyone with a descending opinion. Or point of view is quickly attacked. Sure, all conservatives want to erase the LGBTQ+ community. If you don't see the idiocy in that statement, you sir are out of touch.

Dueces

Name one conservative that is fighting against the hundreds of anti LGBTQ bills being written and copied across the country. Just one.

MaverickM11 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

It’s cute that you apparently belie8ve this, but GOP passed legislation really doesn’t support that view. If you need to ask “What legislation?”, then you’re even more out of touch than you realise.

I honestly don't know why I even try. This board is such an echo chamber and anyone with a descending opinion. Or point of view is quickly attacked. Sure, all conservatives want to erase the LGBTQ+ community. If you don't see the idiocy in that statement, you sir are out of touch.

Dueces

Name one conservative that is fighting against the hundreds of anti LGBTQ bills being written and copied across the country. Just one.

I dont consider bills that prohibit hormone therapy on minors anti-LGBQT+. That deciosn needs to be made once they are mature, not as children.

I'm sure I will get called a nazi now for that view.

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The "left" gave him the ammunition by simply existing. Conservatives have been trying to erase the LGBTQ community forever and this is just a new avenue for them to try generations old tactics.

She's also lost several races--what does the governor declare in those races?

This is 100% incorrect, conservatives have no desire to erase the LGBTQ+ community. Remarks like this are exactly why there is a huge divide in the county, but please keep blaming conservatives.

Republican led states are passing anti-LGBTQ legislation. Florida just passed a horrific bill that forces teachers to out students. Students are so against this awful "don't say gay" law but MAGA minion DeSantis does not care because he is pandering to his hate fueled base. Then, there are plenty of right wing extremist school boards who are banning books because they have positive LGBTQ themes. Banning books.

https://www.salon.com/2022/02/08/whats- ... term-plan/
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ok-banning

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I honestly don't know why I even try. This board is such an echo chamber and anyone with a descending opinion. Or point of view is quickly attacked. Sure, all conservatives want to erase the LGBTQ+ community. If you don't see the idiocy in that statement, you sir are out of touch.

Dueces

Name one conservative that is fighting against the hundreds of anti LGBTQ bills being written and copied across the country. Just one.

I dont consider bills that prohibit hormone therapy on minors anti-LGBQT+. That deciosn needs to be made once they are mature, not as children.

I'm sure I will get called a nazi now for that view.

And to forbid them from even discussing their feelings and thoughts and desires to be a healthy human is also taboo. Thus increasing the teen suicide rate. I get not starting hormone therapy until they are adult or with the consent of legal guardians. But this "don't say gay" law is a death sentence signed by the party of "every life is sacred".

bpatus297 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

This is 100% incorrect, conservatives have no desire to erase the LGBTQ+ community. Remarks like this are exactly why there is a huge divide in the county, but please keep blaming conservatives.

It’s cute that you apparently believe this, but GOP passed legislation really doesn’t support that view. If you need to ask “What legislation?”, then you’re even more out of touch than you realise.

I honestly don't know why I even try. This board is such an echo chamber and anyone with a descending opinion. Or point of view is quickly attacked. Sure, all conservatives want to erase the LGBTQ+ community. If you don't see the idiocy in that statement, you sir are out of touch.

Dueces

And yet, when you were asked to try and name one conservative fighting against anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, you didn't try, you just deflected the question by making it about your opinion on one very narrow LGBTQ+ issue.

Thread went off topic and will be locked.