Female Boxer Refuses to Fight Trans Opponent in Canadian Championship Match

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Jack9000 said:

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

I think this is probably one of those rare things that transcends even today's polarized politics to a large degree. It's just wrong and everyone can see it

Also... "leaning"???

[Nationalist]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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

 

GOOD FOR HER! Its past time the real ladies began refusing to participate.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[Zeitgeist]

The union should be sued or charged with safety violations due to the high risk of injury posed to women by the admission of trans women (biological males) to the women’s sport.  

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

You’re so far from Conservative.  You’re more Marxist than any other political stripe that I can discern because you support destroying institutions and long-held democratic rights to appease revolutionaries and radicals.  

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

 

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.

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

 

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

That's what this thread is about, one stakeholder saying enough, she is not going to risk injury fighting a biological male in an unequal contest under the banner of "women's" sport.

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Oh look - the "conservative" isn't concerned about the decline of free speech.  *pikachu shocked face!  *

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That's what this thread is about, one stakeholder saying enough, she is not going to risk injury fighting a biological male in an unequal contest under the banner of "women's" sport.

Right but we're not a 'Women's Boxing" forum so I don't get why we are discussing it... especially in the 'Federal Politics' subforum...

[Guest]

44 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...

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.  If you want to reduce that to cakes then that's your choice.  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?  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.

4) 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.

[Michael Hardner]

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  ? )

Edited November 17, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[Aristides]

So a woman who refuses to fight a man is a wimp. Interesting.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

So a woman who refuses to fight a man is a wimp. Interesting.

I said JK !!! I even put one of these -> ? 

All in fun my friend...

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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 women boxer wimping out of a fight ( JK )

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

2) 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.

3) 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.

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

5) Very much a basic disagreement here. You are kidding about wimping, (Phew! I only saw that on the second look.  I wondered what had happened to you!) but are you kidding about the comparison?  I don't know what the outcome of the Yaniv case was, but no woman should have to attend to male genitalia as part of her day's work if she doesn't want to.  That seems obvious to me.  That said, the case was a one off involving a nutcase.  There is no comparison, as far as I'm concerned, to the issues around sports participation.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right but we're not a 'Women's Boxing" forum so I don't get why we are discussing it... especially in the 'Federal Politics' subforum...

Oh look - the 'conservative' wants us to shut up about a trans policy he can't defend

I mean the answer is painfully obvious - trans rights have been a front and center political discussion with the trudeau gov't for many years now, we have the protests addressing the parental rights in schools, gov'ts across the country are spending billions to address trans inclusion issues and THIS case as well as the other one we were discussion directly addresses human rights, which is of course a federal topic,

But because he doesn't like how the conversation doesn't support his left wing echo chamber, Michael just wishes we'd shut up about it.

This is very much a federal political topic and will continue to be for some time.

[Zeitgeist]

This is the kind of nonsense that brings down empires.  Healthy civilizations don’t behave like this.  

[Michael Hardner]

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

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

I did delete it.  

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

Well, you brought up trans rights in your first point I responded to, but fair enough.  The issue is not about rights but whether or not they are a valid enough reason to have a discussion.  Where I have a problem with your reasoning is the notion that there is any comparison with the Yaniv case.  Sure, I think those women had every right to refuse the work, but that was just a one off, with, as far as I'm concerned, a nutcase in one corner.  I can see a point being made about how a long and varied discussion of this event might be said to be affording the case a bit too much gravitas.

Such is simply not the case with trans participation in women's sports.  This is a life changing issue for many women who have worked their whole lives, so far, to have reached a certain point in their sport, only to have all the effort and dedication suddenly reduced to nothing.  The frequency of such things happening is irrelevant.

Edited November 17, 2023 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[Michael Hardner]

43 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well, you brought up trans rights in your first point ... 

Here's one to answer my own question:

Trans women banned from Chess.... and nobody here cared much when it happened nor did I apparently...
 

 

[Deluge]

5 hours 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.

The queer agenda is all things political, and tranny worship is becoming an epidemic.

You need to get out more. 

[Aristides]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here's one to answer my own question:

Trans women banned from Chess.... and nobody here cared much when it happened nor did I apparently...
 

 

Very strange but I always thought chess people were different. I'd like to hear the logic behind this.  There is nothing athletic about chess..