Jump to content

Female Boxer Refuses to Fight Trans Opponent in Canadian Championship Match


CdnFox

Recommended Posts

https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2023/11/15/female-boxer-refuses-fight-trans-opponent-canadian-championship-match/

A female boxer in Quebec withdrew from a provincial boxing championship last month after being told without notice that she would have to fight a male-born transgender opponent.

“I came down from my hotel room to head towards the room where all the boxers were warming up. My coach suddenly took me aside and told me he received information by text message, which he had then validated, that my opponent was not a woman by birth. We did not have any other additional information,” Bissonnette told Reduxx.

She added that Walmsley was new to the area, having only moved to Canada from Australia two years ago, and had not been seen in the boxing community until that day.

“[Walmsley] would have boxed as a man in Australia,” Bissonnette explains. “In Quebec, on his file, it is mentioned that he had 0 fights as a woman.”

 

Looks like lots of women athletes have had enough of this sh*t

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are bigger things to deal with

There are no "bigger issues". Governments losing their sane minds and trying to impose the alternative reality in their dreams on the society is never a minor issue. It will only get worse, that much we should know from history.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

 Boi p***y, you bigot! O_o

Actually I think calling a penis a "female member" will eventually be of order.

So if you think its a vagina, then it is.

There's no use fighting it. This is it.

Just quoting the man himself.

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, I don't get why they haven't dealt with this issue but on another level... who cares and an even other level why is this in Federal Politics ?

There are bigger things to deal with but some people are just obsessed with trans issues I guess.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, I don't get why they haven't dealt with this issue but on another level... who cares and an even other level why is this in Federal Politics ?

There are bigger things to deal with but some people are just obsessed with trans issues I guess.

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

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, I don't get why they haven't dealt with this issue but on another level... who cares and an even other level why is this in Federal Politics ?

There are bigger things to deal with but some people are just obsessed with trans issues I guess.

Funny how you oppose anyone speaking against your support of LGBTQ123.  Something that is a national issue is certainly federal.  We see Trudeau marching in pride parades every chance he can get. 

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

There are no "bigger issues".  

Biggest issues are: Political Unity, and Economy + Environment (tie) in that order.

Trans women's boxing matters almost nothing in that context, and I'm offended by the space being given to these topics.  From what I can see its mostly from people who hate the idea of transgender people.  But I can't say for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

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

A blanket ban would most definitely solve the issue.  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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Biggest issues are: Political Unity, and Economy + Environment (tie) in that order.

Trans women's boxing matters almost nothing in that context, and I'm offended by the space being given to these topics.  From what I can see its mostly from people who hate the idea of transgender people.  But I can't say for sure.

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

Political unity is something only a dictatorship would wish, by the way. We need a plurality of views and we need to make it acceptable to debate gender ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

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. 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.

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

3. 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.

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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...

Do you care about women's rights and their desire not to have to compete against biological men? To not lose spots on women's  teams including national teams to men? To have play contact sports against men? It has nothing to do with gay rights. Lots of gay women compete in women's sports, maybe a majority in some sports, because they are women.

 

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aristides said:

Do you care about women's rights and their desire not to have to compete against biological men? To not lose spots on women's national teams to men? To have play contact sports against men? It has nothing to do with gay rights. Lots of gay women compete in women's sports, maybe a majority in some sports, because they are women.

 

Freedom of association is a human right which is denied to those who are not considered a sacred cow of the PC movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,752
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Dorai
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
    • CrazyCanuck89 went up a rank
      Apprentice
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...