Female Boxer Refuses to Fight Trans Opponent in Canadian Championship Match

[CdnFox]

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

 

[NAME REMOVED]

That is BS.  No biological male should compete in Women's sports. It's cheating.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

That is BS.  No biological male should compete in Women's sports. It's cheating.

well especially boxing of all things.

[Aristides]

Good for her, more women need to stand up to this bullshit.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Good for her, more women need to stand up to this bullshit.

Exactly. The bullshit you anti-Trumpers unleashed upon us.   

[Guest]

Yeah, should be illegal. Combat sports is a game of inches. Milliseconds.

The advantages a male has, could result in grievous injury or even death.

This has no business in sports.

Anyone saying Caitlyn Jenner holds no advantages over a female, is smoking crack.

 

 

[impartialobserver]

In daily life, I do not care in the least. In sports, that changes. Biological males with years of testosterone exposure have a distinct advantage in terms of upper body strength and speed. In a contact sport like boxing.. this equates to a sizeable advantage for which training, diet, and know-how can't overcome. 

[Aristides]

39 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Exactly. The bullshit you anti-Trumpers unleashed upon us.   

Do you think Trump cares other than he can't grab them by the p**sy??

Edited November 17, 2023 by Aristides

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

Do you think Trump cares other than he can't grab them by the p**sy??

 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.

[myata]

Enough of this nonsense already. If the government won't stop it, we, citizens should quit.

Edited November 17, 2023 by myata

[Jack9000]

don't blame her I am Left leaning and even I think its bs menn at birth should not be fighting woman

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[myata]

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.

[Aristides]

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.

[Guest]

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.

 

[blackbird]

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 November 17, 2023 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[Guest]

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?

[QuebecOverCanada]

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.

[Michael Hardner]

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   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...

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[QuebecOverCanada]

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.

[Aristides]

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   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 November 17, 2023 by Aristides

[QuebecOverCanada]

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.