Transgender Issues

[Perspektiv]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

A lot of people reject that. 

A lot of people reject the word breastfeeding. What's your point?

My wife doesn't chest feed. She has breasts. She breastfeeds. She creates milk. All intricacies of being a biological woman.

Rejecting something because it offends you, doesn't stop making it fact. Using "inclusive" language where facts are blurred, doesn't make things factual.

If I put on 200lbs, I would be fat. Morbidly so. Changing language or calling people fat shamers, or pushing for fat acceptance, doesn't change the health repercussions of my decisions. Facts don't care about feelings.

47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I will work around your ridiculous demand as much as possible.

This is what the world has started to do with the trans community. But when you start demanding to play with women in adult competitive leagues, or shower or be jailed with them (being non passable, or worse, still having male parts), the ignoring becomes a bit more difficult, as its at the expense of another marginalized group. Progress to some. We disagree strongly, as this is taking all advances women have made and turning them into a joke.

54 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They won't bite you.

I do better. I vote for voices that are in agreement with logic. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

And your example is also wrong. A more appropriate one would be calling a Black man a Black man ...

Your example misses the point that the target would be offended.  You are saying that you aren't allowed to say things that are offensive right ?  Well you can.

You can call people fat too, if you are into simply being rude and following a personal epistemic code.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

1. A lot of people reject the word breastfeeding. What's your point?

2. Rejecting something because it offends you, doesn't stop making it fact. Using "inclusive" language where facts are blurred, doesn't make things factual.

3. .This is what the world has started to do with the trans community. But when you start demanding to play with women in adult competitive leagues, or shower or be jailed with them (being non passable, or worse, still having male parts), the ignoring becomes a bit more difficult, as its at the expense of another marginalized group. Progress to some. We disagree strongly, as this is taking all advances women have made and turning them into a joke.

4. I do better. I vote for voices that are in agreement with logic. 

1. My point is you can't use your definition and say "it's demonstrable" because you are using your own definition.  It's not objectively accepted.
2. People have to agree on what words mean to debate them.  Otherwise it's a non-starter.  
3. All of this is the process of evolving a moral sphere.  It happened with interracial marriage and now this.  
4. Defining a word the way you want to isn't "logic".  You support some trans rights issues and not others, so you are like everyone.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

1. But the 'sources of information' control access to the public square.

2. They control how a given topic is treated in the public sphere, ridiculing and putting down anyone who disagrees on a variety of topics. This is most especially evident on social policy issues where voices of detractors are only very rarely heard or portrayed incorrectly. They propagandize their views and outlaw contrary views. Ordinary people can discuss things among themselves in private away from media condemnation but their views are largely ignored by politicians.

3. First, you're utterly ignoring the way progressives will seek to have you turned into an outcast, pressuring and threatening you, your friends and family as well as employers or schools. You're also ignoring the implications of the inclusion of trans into human rights and criminal codes on harassment/discrimination, as well as corporate policies.

4. You are, in effect, demanding we ignore reality because the government won't yet imprison you for calling a man a man, even though other elements of the progressive left will try to destroy you without regard to what the voiceless 'mainstream' might think of what you said.

5. Using a racist slur has no motive and no point but to cause offense. Denying someone's fantasy because it conflicts with reality is quite a different thing.

1.  Media is a public square itself.  And academia doesn't control access, they can't gatekeep a forum they don't control.
2. You mean like FOX and 4Chan ?  This is a non-starter for me.  Sorry.
3. You can have an opinion, you can express it, and you can insult.  In the true public square there will be consequences.  I will acknowledge that the situation is not as simple as 'having an opinion' if you do too. 

If you say things that are insulting or even hateful to protected groups then that is a problem.  In order to express an opinion that you don't think trans people really exist, you will cross that line.  If you want to argue, though, that trans folks shouldn't compete in sports in some cases - do you agree that that is a different kind of statement ?

4. There are two issues, as I understand: what the 'progressive left' does and what the government and the public does when certain statements are made.  
5. It doesn't matter.  People use insulting language all the time and it makes no sense to add some criteria to deem it real or not.  The terms are clear: hate speech, offensive language... they are different things dealt with differently by law, human resource departments and polite society.

 

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not objectively accepted.

Its biology. I prefer going by logic and biology. You're free to go by any other means that you would like. I side with the doctors that aren't afraid of calling this movement for what it is.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It happened with interracial marriage and now this.  

Until my last dying breath I refuse to pretend a man with a dress on is magically a woman. Sorry. They aren't. Never will be. Like I said in another thread. You see a woman. I see a Fiero with a Ferrari kit. Its not the same, and am not the type of person who can be gaslit.

If I saw one breastfeeding, I won't tell them its because they aren't pregnant. Its because you don't have breasts. 

Once people like me die off, you can create genders all you like, and get zero political push back. Until then, those of us who are still sane, will do our talking through our votes.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Defining a word the way you want

Thats the thing. Am not the one who has defined woman and man ever since humanity began. If I did, you would have a point. Am basing it on hundreds of years worth of studying of the human anatomy. 

I won't change my language because activists in the 90s were able to begin convincing people that gender was offensive and needed to be change, minus the evidence of it actually requiring it. 

Look. You will never change my mind. I hear your points, but I will believe in the gender binary, until someone shows me something believable, otherwise. Not something that changes per each individual telling me it. To me, that's a sign of people not knowing what they are talking about.

[Americana Antifa]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

You are obsessed with this stupid refrain about fascists everywhere.

Do you check under your bed every day in case a fascist is hiding there?

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

1.  I side with the doctors that aren't afraid of calling this movement for what it is.

2. Until my last dying breath...

3. Once people like me die off, you can create genders all you like, and get zero political push back.

4. Until then, those of us who are still sane, will do our talking through our votes.

5.   You will never change my mind. 

1. Doctors?  Cite?

2. At this rate I will probably be there for it.  I've already heard you repeat this so many times.

3. I don't care about the number of genders.  I'm conservative so I care about freedom.  I don't have to wait until people like you are dead, just until you make up 49% of the population, which was awhile ago.

4. And how's that going for you?

5. I'm definitely not trying to.  If I understood your position, I still wouldn't.  From what I can tell you support trans rights but are defiantly standing up against some vague trans conspiracy in vague ways.  You seem like a nice guy.

 

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Media is a public square itself.  And academia doesn't control access, they can't gatekeep a forum they don't control.

Progressives DO gatekeep the mainstream media, as well as what I guess you could call the mainstream internet.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. You mean like FOX and 4Chan ?  This is a non-starter for me.  Sorry.

To begin with, neither of these is Canada. Second, they're not considered mainstream. 4chan especially. And their influence is limited to their target audience. 4chan has 22 million unique visitors. Reddit, by itself, over 400 million. FOX is an infotainment channel which really only attracts angry, politicized right wing people. Meanwhile, you have the entire streaming world, from Disney to Prime to Netflix, plus all the networks pumping out woke TV shows blaring THE MESSAGE and movies all day, every day for years. Disney seems willing to sacrifice profit and audience to pump out THE MESSAGE and if half the country has turned away from their product in disgust that doesn't seem to bother them much. Giving that half the finger with every show they put out pleases them more than money.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. You can have an opinion, you can express it, and you can insult.  In the true public square there will be consequences. 

Here is what you insist on ignoring. In a true public square, there MIGHT be consequences if your opinion is wildly out of tune with the bulk of the citizenry. But if your message is Communism is the best possible kind of government, which certainly IS out of step with most people no one is going to be petitioning your boss or school to fire you. No one is going to be trying to track you down both online and in person to harass and insult you. But if your message is we've taken the concept of 'gender fluidity' to extremes and should pull back until there are unbiased studies the situation will be wildly different.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

f you say things that are insulting or even hateful to protected groups then that is a problem. 

What did JK Rowling say that was insulting or hateful to trans people? 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

In order to express an opinion that you don't think trans people really exist, you will cross that line.

Don't pretend you have to go that far. The baying mob will come for you if you say males who declared themselves females yesterday shouldn't be getting naked in women's change rooms.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 If you want to argue, though, that trans folks shouldn't compete in sports in some cases - do you agree that that is a different kind of statement ?

What percentage of people called 'transphobic' do you think deny transgender people exist? I'm figuring maybe 1%-2% in Canada. Most people just express doubts about all the demands for complete equality with real biological women.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are two issues, as I understand: what the 'progressive left' does and what the government and the public does when certain statements are made.  

"The public"? My perception and what polls I've been able to find suggests 'the public's opinion more closely mirrors that of JK Rowling than it does Justin Trudeau. This is what the illiberal left who call themselves progressives do - for now. The Trudeau government keeps bringing in more restrictive laws regarding what people can say on the internet, and there are rumblings about doing something more about in-person too. 

After all, when your words are endangering the safety of trans people simply by disagreeing with them surely it must be made illegal to disagree with them.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It doesn't matter.  People use insulting language all the time and it makes no sense to add some criteria to deem it real or not.  The terms are clear: hate speech, offensive language... they are different things dealt with differently by law, human resource departments and polite society.

Define 'insulting' language, if you can. Because we're moving back into the territory of compelled speech again. Because failing to use the speech dictated by transgender activists is, to their mind, insulting and offensive. As is disagreeing with any aspect of their demands. Including saying those under eighteen shouldn't be allowed to change genders, which you did earlier. So you're already guilty. Give me your employer's name so I can call them and tell them you're a transphobe is using hateful language and trying to deny my existence. Yes, mine. I've decided I'm a woman. Just today. Maybe tomorrow I'll be a man again, or perhaps a tiger or some other animal.

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your example misses the point that the target would be offended.  You are saying that you aren't allowed to say things that are offensive right ?  Well you can.

You can call people fat too, if you are into simply being rude and following a personal epistemic code.

Fat is a pejorative term. Are you suggesting calling a Black man a Black man is similarly pejorative?

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

Please name the people here who have said any of those things. 

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

And how's that going for you?

You will find out in 2024.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

trans conspiracy

If thats what you want to call it.

[Americana Antifa]

46 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Please name the people here who have said any of those things. 

Obviously, it's satire, so there's a slight exaggeration. But conservatives will support fascist politicians like Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, Giorgia Meloni, and Benjamin Netanyahu. Then when you point out that these people are reactionary and anti-democracy, which is fascism, they'll say the line "you think anyone who disagrees with you is fascist!"

Orbán is a literal dictator who was invited to speak at CPAC. But if you say this is an example of CPAC embracing fascism, they'll say the line.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

1. Progressives DO gatekeep the mainstream media, as well as what I guess you could call the mainstream internet.

2a. To begin with, neither of these is Canada. 2b. Second, they're not considered mainstream.  2c. Meanwhile, you have the entire streaming world, from Disney to Prime to Netflix 

3. Here is what you insist on ignoring. In a true public square, there MIGHT be consequences if your opinion is wildly out of tune with the bulk of the citizenry. But if your message is Communism is the best possible kind of government, which certainly IS out of step with most people no one is going to be petitioning your boss or school to fire you.

4. No one is going to be trying to track you down both online and in person to harass and insult you. But if your message is we've taken the concept of 'gender fluidity' to extremes and should pull back until there are unbiased studies the situation will be wildly different.

5. What did JK Rowling say that was insulting or hateful to trans people? 

6. Most people just express doubts about all the demands for complete equality with real biological women.

7. "The public"? My perception and what polls I've been able to find suggests 'the public's opinion more closely mirrors that of JK Rowling than it does Justin Trudeau. 

8. The Trudeau government keeps bringing in more restrictive laws regarding what people can say on the internet, and there are rumblings about doing something more about in-person too. 

9. After all, when your words are endangering the safety of trans people simply by disagreeing with them surely it must be made illegal to disagree with them.

10. Define 'insulting' language, if you can.

11. Because we're moving back into the territory of compelled speech again. 

1.  "Gatekeep" means direct control over access.  If you think that progressives wield power within corporate media far above their numbers then it's a conspiracy.  But most people seem to be indifferent or supportive of transgender as a group.

This thread of the thread followed from my assertion that if the mainstream supports a position it's no longer extreme.  You then asked "What is the mainsteam? Is it what most Canadians feel and believe." and I said yes.

2a. 2b. True & true.

2c. The idea that social progressives control the media is a tricky one.  For-profit media (news and entertainment) isn't known to challenge its consumers.  Does anyone 'control' an ecosystem with so many players ?  I would say there's a moral sphere but no control there.

3. You don't think people haven't been fired for being Communist ?  Of course it has happened, and it doesn't matter that it was a long time ago.  People are fired for moral sins, I would put it.  This is the work of the "mob".  The best of us hope that there's some restraint happening but the best way to instil restraint is to discredit the mob on a continuous basis.   Communism doesn't get anybody angry in 2023.  I'm sure it will again someday, but recently it has been racists, anti-gay types, sexual assaulters, people who aren't patriotic, or who want to de-emphasize western culture.

4. There is indeed a mob of people who will go after you if you say things, I haven't denied that I don't think.  But that mob exists outside the public sphere and associated with all facets of political life and even non political life.  Somebody I knew posted online against Amber Alerts and was shouted down... by *friends* .  The only thing you can ask is that people of influence distance themselves from the mob.

5. She made fun of the idea that trans women could be called 'women'.  Of course she is allowed to say it, but it's insulting to people - trans and non-trans.  She wasn't cancelled, but people got angry at her for her free expression that was controversial and insulting.

6. And I hear people say that all the time.  If you were alive in the 60s there was a lot to deal with on the subject of race and just culture change, and similarly with the changes in gender roles.  People could openly say they were against interracial relationships then.  Ingrained moral positions will cause a lot of conflict when change comes.  These are difficult conversations and the price of being respected is restraint and tolerance on both sides.

7. Cite ?  I keep seeing polls that say Canadians are mostly ok with transgender rights or at least indifferent.  This makes me regard assertions that people are widely against them as suspicious.

8. Which laws have been brought in ?

9. Hyperbolic.. and I really lose interest in engaging with loooong posts when you start getting hyperbolic at the end like that.  It's a dirty trick...

10.  I can't.  Do I need to ?  Do you think it doesn't exist ?  

11.  Yeah, I think I'm done with this post. Too much time spent to run into this rehash. Peterson's predictions didn't come true and rather than us looking at them as the hyperbolic conjecture that they were, we are bringing them back.  Lessons not learned.  Again: you are free to insult people and make them feel bad or try to, or to teach them a lesson or whatever your intentions are.  If you do it at work, or repeatedly harass people there are frameworks for mitigating the effects of your comments.  Nothing new here.  

 

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

11.  Fat is a pejorative term. Are you suggesting calling a Black man a Black man is similarly pejorative?

11. No - the 'black man' that's the analogy you tried to use, which I reject.  Insulting people is legally protected speech.  Go ahead and do it.  If you feel somebody is fat and that is the "truth" then go ahead... if you feel that a trans women is a man, go ahead and call them a "dude" and see what happens.  You keep trying to make the acceptance of trans people by the mainstream into some special case but there's no trickery here: it's just people being kind and accepting.

If it bothers you then that's too bad.  It seems to me that you can't accept that something you disagree with is happening in our culture.  Well, many of us have to deal with that our whole lives.

[I am Groot]

19 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Obviously, it's satire, so there's a slight exaggeration.

You mean it's a Donald Trump kind of exaggeration.

19 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

But conservatives will support fascist politicians like Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, Giorgia Meloni, and Benjamin Netanyahu.

None of these people are fascists.  I don't particularly like Trump or Netanyahu and I think they should both be locked up, but you're just using the term as a loose pejorative for people you don't like on the right.

19 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Orbán is a literal dictator who was invited to speak at CPAC. But if you say this is an example of CPAC embracing fascism, they'll say the line.

He was elected and re-elected. He is a right-wing populist with authoritarian tendencies and is certainly dangerous to the future of Hungary's democracy, but at the moment he can't be properly labeled a fascist. He (and Meloni) are mainly products of the continuing hand-wringing incompetence of the EU in dealing with mass migration. And you can expect more like them if something isn't done about it. 

[Americana Antifa]

17 hours ago, I am Groot said:

You mean it's a Donald Trump kind of exaggeration.

Not really. Conservatives do openly support dictators and autocracy. They don't use those words, they don't say they like fascism. But they will support politicians and policies that are reactionary and authoritarian, then claim that calling them fascists is unfair.

17 hours ago, I am Groot said:

None of these people are fascists.  I don't particularly like Trump or Netanyahu and I think they should both be locked up, but you're just using the term as a loose pejorative for people you don't like on the right.

They're both reactionary and against democracy. At what point is it ok to call them fascists?

Also, Trump still endorses and speaks at CPAC, even after Viktor Orbán was there. He also regularly rants about how America should have "quick trials" like they do in China. He praises dictators constantly because he wants to be one. And this is on top of his attacks on democracy.

17 hours ago, I am Groot said:

He was elected and re-elected. He is a right-wing populist with authoritarian tendencies and is certainly dangerous to the future of Hungary's democracy, but at the moment he can't be properly labeled a fascist.

Just because a fascist comes to power democratically, does not mean that they somehow cease to be a fascist.

[I am Groot]

Speaking about reactionary we have this story of a female American swimmer trying to give a talk on the need for women's sports to be protected from pathetic men who feel they can 'succeed' by pretending to be women so they can compete against smaller, weaker people. Needless to say, the trans community and activists didn't approve of her having an opinion in opposition to theirs. She was assaulted by a man dressed as a woman and the rest of the howling, frenzied mob forced police to pull her out of the room and barricade her in a room.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/riley-gaines-ambushed-physically-hit-after-saving-womens-sports-speech-san-francisco-state?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

By the way, before you complain that this is from FOX, FOX news is generally pretty accurate as opposed to their 'infotainment' side. But in any event, I got this off Ground News, and if you look, you'll see that there is simply no source on the left or centre even bothering to cover this story or other stories like this. 

https://ground.news/article/riley-gaines-punched-by-man-in-skirt-as-mob-ambush-her-at-sfsu-saving-womens-sport-speech

Edited April 7, 2023 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

On 4/5/2023 at 9:47 AM, Americana Antifa said:

Not really. Conservatives do openly support dictators and autocracy.

Heard from your friends in Venezuela lately? Have the Left finally given up on supporting them? How about Nicaragua?

On 4/5/2023 at 9:47 AM, Americana Antifa said:

They're both reactionary and against democracy.

Well, you can't have democracy without free speech. And that's not a concept the Left seems to be much attached to lately.

On 4/5/2023 at 9:47 AM, Americana Antifa said:

At what point is it ok to call them fascists?

When they become fascists. 

On 4/5/2023 at 9:47 AM, Americana Antifa said:

Also, Trump still endorses and speaks at CPAC,

Trump is not a conservative. I"m not even sure the loons at CPAC qualify as conservatives.

[Americana Antifa]

9 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Heard from your friends in Venezuela lately? Have the Left finally given up on supporting them? How about Nicaragua?

Whataboutism.

And I don't know of any mainstream leftists that support the governments of Nicaragua or Venezuela.

9 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Well, you can't have democracy without free speech. And that's not a concept the Left seems to be much attached to lately.

Name some left-wing politicians who have tried to pass laws that would limit speech. Don't name randos on twitter, name actual elected officials.

9 hours ago, I am Groot said:

When they become fascists. 

They're reactionary, anti-democratic, and they're chipping away at free speech. What else do they have to do?

9 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Trump is not a conservative. I"m not even sure the loons at CPAC qualify as conservatives.

Then what exactly is a conservative?

The vast majority of people who identify as conservatives are authoritarian and have been so throughout history. Whatever conservatism is, it's certainly an authoritarian philosophy.

[CdnFox]

On 4/3/2023 at 2:13 PM, Perspektiv said:

Until my last dying breath I refuse to pretend a man with a dress on is magically a woman.

Klinger from MASH would like to have a word with you...

[August1991]

On 4/3/2023 at 5:13 PM, Perspektiv said:

...

Until my last dying breath I refuse to pretend a man with a dress on is magically a woman. Sorry. They aren't. Never will be. Like I said in another thread. You see a woman. I see a Fiero with a Ferrari kit. Its not the same, and am not the type of person who can be gaslit.

...

I haven't read through this entire thread. But this post struck me.

''''

Most of us are right-handed. In Canada, most people speak English. But some people are left-handed.

And some of us are bilingual.

As I say, we are just humans..

 

[Perspektiv]

8 minutes ago, August1991 said:

But some people are left-handed.

Notice though how you can differentiate between left and right handed. You pointing this out doesn't make you bigoted? 

My being left hand used to get me discriminated. I was reminded it wasn't good, as a child.

Eventually  we socially accepted that being lefthanded isn't a bad thing, even gladly adjusting tools and musical instruments for such people.

Am firmly against discrimination against someone for being trans. Like you said. They are human.

But to tell people, that they aren't trans or left handed by your take. They are right handed, is lunacy.

You don't fight discrimination by forcing people to believe a trans woman and biological woman are identical. They demonstrably are not,  and will create fierce opposition. 

People like Riley Gaines being assaulted by a trans woman no less,  for openly stating she was forced to shower with a trans woman, is not progress.

Women being petrified to speak up, and thus being silenced at the expense of their rights after generations of advances for them,  is not progress.

You're discriminating against women to make trans women feel better about themselves. I am firmly against this, too.

Sorry, but my wife will never be a chest feeder, or a menstruating person.

She also isn't cis. She is a woman, and there was once upon a time, where such a role, was revered in society. If this makes me a TERF, another term coined to suppress opposition, I will take it gladly.

[August1991]

47 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Notice though how you can differentiate between left and right handed. You pointing this out doesn't make you bigoted?

----

But some people are ambidextrous, and others are bilingual.

==

Many years ago, I recall Trudeau Snr noting that many Americans applauded the Washington Capitols (yet most players were Canadian) and many Quebecers applauded the Montreal Canadiens (yet many players were anglophone).

===

Perspektiv,

I get your point: East is east, west is west. My point is that people are people.

But here's another idea: What if a NHL team hired a woman as a goalie?

[Michael Hardner]

Calling out "facts" is somehow seen as being a test of something called "freedom of speech".  

Freedom of Speech isn't the issue, social currency is 

 

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

What if a NHL team hired a woman as a goalie?

You mean like Manon Rheaume?

She likely would be slower, smaller and less powerful than the men. Don't take my words, Google it. She didn't remotely have a chance at making the team.

She was not taking anything away from the men, as she would barely be able to compete with them. If anything, signing her in the name of diversity would be diluting the skill pool it takes to make the NHL, as likely there would be people better than her being cut. I mean,  you could do this, but her getting lit up for 5-6 goals per game because she doesn't fill out the net, would have her cut in no time. Beauty of this league. You're measured by your skillset.

Same as throwing a woman in the men's jails. She would be at risk. Not them. 

Lia Thomas, less than two years before shattering records in NCAA swimming with biological women, was competing with men.

With the men she ranked in the 400's at best. Marginal swimmer. With the women in less than two years, was shattering records. Not tenths of a second. Full seconds. 

The best biological women could barely tie her. Its not the same ball game. Anyone stating otherwise, are thinking emotionally and not looking at the data.

Equality is a level playing field. Men are stronger and faster, so have segregated leagues once puberty sets in. This isn't sexism. My wife is tiny compared to me. She is of average height for women. I am slightly taller than the average man at 6'. It doesn't matter, I have mauled women as tall as me in hockey. One of which I took it easy on, until she called me a p**** for doing so. 

Okay, I thought. Yes its recreational play, but I quickly sent her a message, knocking her off the puck hard several times, then slewfooting her and knocking her to the ice, to her protesting my rough housing and all of a sudden pulling her woman card. I took it easy on her for a reason. 

If a woman feels she can compete with a man, all the power to her, but many have tried and failed. This isn't an insult. Its a fact.

Now, if women were biologically stronger and faster than men, and the tables turned. Say, a WNBA star joined the NBA and immediately scored 50 points a game, and forced men to shower in the same shower as her and any cat calling or looks or words would have them being transphobic, they would be equally entitled to protest.

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

But some people are ambidextrous, and others are bilingual.

But they demonstrably speak two languages.

How can you demonstrably be a biological woman, with a penis between your legs? 

Biological woman, indicates the parts you have that allow you to bear children. Of course, defects, age and other issues may prevent this, but you cannot ignore this. 

Like the lunatics feeling a biological man can breastfeed. Can have a period. Not intersex. Biologically male.

Nobody has the guts to say anything. They just laugh behind closed doors.

Soon enough, me saying the above, could become illegal. This is what they are calling progress.