Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Michael Hardner

  1. 28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

    1.  The issue is not about rights but whether or not they are a valid enough reason to have a discussion. 
    2. Where I have a problem with your reasoning is the notion that there is any comparison with the Yaniv case. 
    3. The frequency of such things happening is irrelevant.

    1. For me, that's the important issue yes.
    2. If you look at why I comment on this then you might see.  The question driving this for me came from Harold Innes "Why do we attend to the things to which we attend?  With Yaniv and boxing the answer seems the same to me.
    3. Do we follow these stories when the trans women are excluded also ?  Honest question and I don't know the answer.

  2. 12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

    1)  I'm not sure what your point is here. 

    2) There is no right to participate in a sport if you don't meet the requirements.  The point is that trans people don't.  Their rights are not affected.  I care about trans rights.  Same as I do gay rights, religious freedom and women's rights.  Sometimes they collide, which they do in the cake example, and one has to choose.  I don't see any reason to worry about a choice when it comes to the sports issue.

    3) Some people might be angry.  I can't understand why you can't understand why this is important to women in sports.  I don't see Jessica Yaniv as being relevant to this discussion.

    4) Again, I don't see how Jessica Yaniv is relevant.  There will be people who believe that trans women have a right to participate in the sports they played before transitioning and they will continue to talk about it.

    5) Right.  Me too.  Isn't that what we do on here?  Argue about such things?

    6)  There is no comparison, as far as I'm concerned, to the issues around sports participation.

    1) I said it at the top - I might care to discuss it based on the scale.  My interest in this thread relates to how we discuss social issues in the public sphere and that's all.

    2) Ok - well you seem to be diving into the subject itself.  I accept your summation of your position without comment.

    3) Maybe they're angry... but I'm pretty sure conservative white males like myself are even angrier from what I can tell.  And Jessica Yaniv is relevant because... public sphere or maybe in her case pubic sphere... ( hold the applause until the end please )

    4) Pubic sphere.

    5) My fantasy would be for someone with a PhD in economics to dissect Canada's real economic interests in Asia and how the inside-baseball policy wonks of the major parties agree/disagree.  Might have more relevance than a guy in a dress playing softball in Moncton or something... ( see I can joke on both sides... because I'm in the centre on this stuff )

    6) The comparison is of scale of the problem to be solved.  Number of people directly impacted vs the anger-sphere...

    @TreeBeard did you delete a post ?  I got a message that you responded here but ... nothing

  3. 20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

    1) I don't think it is.  A federal law guaranteeing there was no discrimination based on what a religion has to say on someone else's lifestyle would be appropriate. 

    2)  That doesn't mean other people shouldn't be discussing something that is important to them.  I actually can't understand why you would think that as this is not high on your radar, that makes it unimportant. 

    2) A blanket ban would have to be decided upon internationally by all the affected sports controlling bodies, so that's very unlikely.  As a hypothetical question it's worth asking.  I would support such a thing.  You just wouldn't care, so the end result is the same.

    3) People will always talk about it.  Isn't that your problem with the issue now? 

    4) A blanket ban would be the fairest solution (IMO), and then a different group of people would be talking about it.  You could then tell them it's not worth worrying about and they should talk about more important issues.

    5) It is the case.  People did have to wear masks.  And that was just too bad.  If they didn't want to enter a property, they could leave the mask off and go away.  If a male born athlete wants to compete, they still can, with other males.  But under the "too bad" rule, not with females.

    1)  Sure but that's a done deal.  The cake baking thing is implementation details and I don't have to care about that to the same degree.  So the idea that there's some inconsistency between caring about Trans rights but not this sports issue as much seems to me to be analagous.  

    2) I mean, you know they CAN discuss it, I am not saying otherwise.  And every time I post on this topic I hear that from people.  I am simply asking people to reflect on whether this is actually important or they're just posting because they're angry about the issue.  If people were REALLY REALLY concerned about Jessica Yaniv I don't understand why they didn't post the result of the HRC decision as much as they posted when they thought she would "get away with it"

    3) Yes that is my problem but I don't think people will always talk about it.  The Yaniv thing handled it and I don't remember a giant Trans movement to get that decision reversed.  

    4) Well maybe but it's beyond hypothetical that any of that would happen ... lots of decisions go against what I would agree with and I have to accept that the process happened.

    5) You aren't saying anything much about the public sphere here though.  My point is that "the" public needs to weigh in on things to a certain point, just as the government only needs to legislate things to a certain point.  The rise of social media has presented a host of problems including the one that people think everything they care about is important.  And these things end up being important anyway just because people have an opinion.  Imagine if people cared as much about the court backlogs as they do about Jessica Yaniv or some woman boxer wimping out of a fight ( JK  😂 )

  4. Just now, Aristides said:

    1. I don't know about NASCAR but F1 drivers are weighed and if they are below a certain weight, ballast has to be added to the car.

    2. What chance do you think a woman who transitioned would have competing against men at a high level regardless of how much you pumped them up with hormones and other crap, stuff that would get a man disqualified for doping?

    3. They can't compete either, are they being discriminated against? 


    1. This is something I recollect from discussion of "Women in NASCAR" from decades ago... just an analogy to talk about the real issue to me, which is our collective use of the public sphere.

    2. 3.  I don't know and I don't care either.  Participation in individual sports and jurisdictions can be addressed with the stakeholders involved, I trust.  

    I'm just fed up with the discussion.... It started with Jessica Yaniv and that one evaporated when the issue was dealt with appropriately... calling the entire controversy into question IMO.

  5. 9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

    1. Do you care about women's rights and their desire not to have to compete against biological men?

    2. To not lose spots on women's  teams including national teams to men?

    3.  To have play contact sports against men?



    1. Somewhat, yes ?  But if people wanted Parliament to protest Danica Patrick not being allowed to compete in NASCAR because of a weight advantage I would say "really ?"  Do we need to talk about this ?

    And why DO we talk about these things ?  Because they're important ?  I think it's more because it upsets us and therefore feeds the angertainment sphere.

    2.  I mean... they ARE trans women so if you want to engage with your opponents politically then to me you should use the terms we all agree too.  An analogy would be to call the Convoy people Nazis which is not ok in my books.  Use the terms of the people involved as they would prefer so we can engage in .... politics.

    3.  You are asking an honest question and here's my honest answer: no I don't think people born as men should automatically be allowed to compete against people born as women.

  6. 1 minute ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

    1. People lose their jobs and incomes due to their political views which are not bigoted, but only because they have voices who are criticizing the gender ideology movement.

    2. It is not freedom of speech if you have a sword over your head for expressing a non-PC view, it is not freedom of association as well to impose males in women competition where women want to compete between each other.

    3. I don't know what you're referring to. My argument still stands; Unity is not a goal we should reach as a society.

    4. Trying to impose your views in a way that's aggressive, that defies even elementary biology is not going forward. I don't think denying basic biology is the way to go. I don't think censorship is the way to go.

    5. The issues of freedom of speech and association are in grave danger and if those fall, we will live a little Dark Age in the West.

    1.  Well that would be a problem but in order for us to say that this indicated that freedom of speech is in actual decline you would need to understand more than just what you have stated here.  It's a deep dive topic for sure.  Suffice it to say, for now, that I don't accept your statement automatically as indicating we're in decline and how to frame the problem.  Start a new thread if you want to discuss with me and I'd be glad to participate.

    2.  See #1 

    3. You said political unity is something ONLY a dictatorship would wish but we need at least some political unity in order to function and probably more than we have now IMO.

    4.  I am not sure what you are saying about my point but... "Agressive" "Elementary biology" are subjective terms, I'm sure you would agree.  I'm sure that people who oppose you would use similar language.  I'm in the middle so I can see clearly that the answer to this is political.

    5.  I agree but I think the whole discussion includes more than 'freedom of speech' but how to design our system of public feedback on issues that are contested including economic, environment, social etc.

    I'm pro-transgender people but in that way that Conservatives are: preserve our institutions and tolerate those who can't accept the newness of this phenomenon to a point.

  7. 2 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

    1. Freedom of speech and association are in decline in Canada and the western world in general, and is a major issue.

    2. Political unity is something only a dictatorship would wish, by the way.

    3. We need a plurality of views and we need to make it acceptable to debate gender ideology.

    1. I totally disagree.  There is MORE speech and therefore more freedom but people confuse 'freedom' with 'having a platform at the level they would like'
    2. 100% unity, yes, but that's not what I mean.  I would like to see the type of unity we had nationally in our Centenary. 
    3. There's a limit to said plurality.  Democracy is a framework to give all a voice... in DECISION making.  It's not intended to stop all forward progress on economic and social fronts until there's 100% consent.

    Consumer society has infected us.  People can't stand the idea of not getting what they want and so the very idea of politics is repulsive to them.  

    I would like trans youth to be allowed in sports, but if they worked it out so that there was a blanket ban somehow and people were generally ok with it then so would I be.

  8. 1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

    1. Why would you care?  It seems to me that you think this is an issue worthy of discussion only when the discrimination goes one way. 

    2. Or is it just the mechanism?  A blanket ban wouldn't bother you, it's just how it is arrived at?

    3. A blanket ban would most definitely solve the issue. 

    4. Sometimes the only answer is "no, sorry, you're just going to have to deal with it".  So what if some people can't compete in some sports?

    1. Because of the scale, that's all.  It's like saying because I care about gay rights at all I should care whether there's a federal law about same-sex-marriage cakes being guaranteed by bakers.  I don't.  And if people posted on here 24/7 about a cake baker in Lethbridge I would probably post that the issue belongs in court and the discussion was unnecessary.
    2. I think a blanket 'ban' would probably be excessive but if nobody else cared then I wouldn't either.  
    3. So all of the trans people, LGBTQ+ people and their allies would stop talking about it and therefore so would all of us ?  I don't think so.
    4. I wish that were the case for things I disagree with :D  Like "Sorry you aren't allowed to cough on people so you have to wear a mask" would result in people NOT driving trucks to Ottawa and acting like asshats for 2 months...

  9. 16 hours ago, Rebound said:

     Followed by, “All I want is peace.” 
    You know who else wanted peace? The 1,400 Israelis who were murdered. Everybody wants peace.   

    As much as the Likud-supporting folks hold peace at bay, let us remember that peace will come one day and it will be Israeli Jews who will make it happen and will deserve the credit.

    May the memories of all the dead be a blessing... hard to write that without feeling the weight of the loss of thousands of innocent lives.

  10. 1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

    1. If nobody should care would you be okay with a blanket ban on anyone not born a female competing in any female sports?

    2. It seems to me that would be solution that would enable all of us to go ahead and talk about bigger things.


    1. How ?  On a federal level ?  At that point yes I would care.  But how trans women are designated in amateur boxing ?  No... I cared about the issue when the Trans law was being introduced... the details are to be worked out...

    2.  If you think that action would solve it you're very wrong.  I think that the issue would be solved by letting the jurisdictions that address it facilitate a dialogue and come up with a solution.  Maybe not make it a federal issue... literally.

    1 hour ago, Aristides said:

     Women who have to compete under these condition care. A lot.

    And there are channels for working through that... Parliament doesn't seem to be the right one to me.

  11. 1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

    Well...you have a habit of being wrong. So ya...there's that...

    Can't say I don't but since we're being honest (or I am) let me ask if you would change your mind about all this if someone close to Trump testified that they knew he lost ?  That would mean that all of his statements that the election were stolen were made with the intention of attaining the office of presidency that he knew he did not win.

    Would that change your mind ?

  12. On 9/26/2023 at 10:22 AM, Rebound said:

    If the criminal Trump did not claim the election was “stolen,” and instead conceded the election which he’d lost, there would have been no Jan 6 riot. 

    If the criminal Trump hadn’t organized a “Stop the Steal” rally, there would have been no Jan 6 riot. 

    If the criminal Trump had interceded in the Jan 6 riot by telling his supporters to stop or by ordering deployment of the National Guard or Armed Forces, the Jan 6 rioters would have been prevented from disrupting the U.S. Congress  


    I'm pretty sure that it will come out that Trump himself didn't care that he lost democratically as well.

  13. 1 hour ago, August1991 said:

    Agreed, and clueless.


    People who oppose money - well, they don't understand numbers, mathematics. And to me, they don't understand life - the universe.

    You need to understand more than math to understand money deeply.

    History, for example.  In ancient Sumaria, money was developed as a centralized system of exchange to address "want".  Fast forward four or five thousand years, and digital global money doesn't address want in some quarters.

    It's time to talk about why.  

  14. On 11/2/2023 at 8:40 PM, BeaverFever said:

    Lol someone ran out of crazy pills. Don’t worry I hear Justin might be working on a pharmacare plan, soon you won’t have to go off your meds again   

    The good thing about Ignore List posters commenting is that I can catch comments like this that I missed.

    My fave is when I go to a page and there's an entire wall of hidden comments that I have saved my precious eyes from.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...