Jump to content

Female Boxer Refuses to Fight Trans Opponent in Canadian Championship Match


CdnFox

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

IF there is a reason to have male and female divisions in a sport, and presumably the people participating in the sports should know - then it should be kept to biological sex.

If there's no reason then don't have male and female divisions, it's just kind of weird.

But - if there is a division then keep it based on biology.

The chess thing is just a legacy. Women created their own division some years ago. There is an "open" division for anyone and a women's division.

Why it should matter seems baffling, but the tranny men want to play in the women's chess division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

The chess thing is just a legacy. Women created their own division some years ago. There is an "open" division for anyone and a women's division.

Why it should matter seems baffling, but the tranny men want to play in the women's chess division.

And i would say no.  Women have a right to be women.  They obviously did it seperately for a reason, and that should be respected.

Otherwise this is where we wind up, trying to make decisions on individual sports and getting women beat up by men in the boxing ring etc.

i'm all for reasonable accommodation of trans people. I get that they need to feel welcome and need to be treated as their trans-gender. I dont' believe in compelled speech but if i run into a trans person I treat/refer to them as their preferred gender.

But there is a line and at the end of the day they do need to respect that  they are NOT males or females if that's not how they were born. And asking us to lie about it has limits - my hypocrisy only goes so far :)  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

So you would date and "do" a tranny male, because it's being inclusive in these modern times? It is what they're expecting.

I would probably say i had to go to the gender neutral washroom and escape out the window.

Quote

 

No?

Hater...   ;) 

 

Hate er? I just MET er!

:)

 ANd 'reasonable accomodation' does not mean unfettered access to my love junk.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

1) Okay.

2) Where we differ is on the relative importance of the two issues.  Yaniv is Yaniv and that's it.  The boxing question is women's sports as a whole and to me, that's an inestimably bigger issue.

3) It's the same thing when it comes to reporting.  Boxer can't box.  Swimmer can't swim.  Cyclist can't ride.  Rugby player can't scrum.  Only one story is related to a trans person being able to participate.  The others are reporting on the sport in question ruling against such participation, and they were reported on at the time.

3 hours 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...
 

 

I have to admit my knowledge of competitive chess is limited to "The Queen's Gambit", but from that I drew the conclusion that women competed with men all the time.  I can't imagine why there would be a problem, unless it was full contact chess.

That said, there's been a few pages since I last posted so I'm sure someone has already answered that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1. I care.  @Aristides @CdnFox and @OftenWrong also made comments.  The latter brought up the interesting point that there is an "open" division for anyone and a women's division.

2. Tell Innis he can wonder 'till the cows come home. 

 

1. Ok I see some comments.  No explanation yet.

2. Well, yes, the question is unanswerable by those who understand the question even.  People here mostly don't understand the question.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok I see some comments.  No explanation yet.

2. Well, yes, the question is unanswerable by those who understand the question even.  People here mostly don't understand the question.  

1) Explain what?  Why a trans woman wants to play chess in the women's only division instead of the open division? 

Yeah, it beats me.  To make a point?

2) I didn't know there was a question.  I thought there was simply a disagreement on whether or not certain events were worthy of discussion.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1) Explain what?  

2) I didn't know there was a question.  I thought there was simply a disagreement on whether or not certain events were worthy of discussion.

1) why they would ban them.

2) we don't cover stories because they're worthy, that much we know.  We cover them because they are attended to.  Firstly, I wish it weren't so.  Secondly, I wish we didn't attend to them.  Thirdly, I wish we could answer Innes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1) Explain what?  Why a trans woman wants to play chess in the women's only division instead of the open division? 

Yeah, it beats me.  To make a point?

2) I didn't know there was a question.  I thought there was simply a disagreement on whether or not certain events were worthy of discussion.

We don't really know why women wanted their own chess division in the first place. Because, we don't care. Far as I'm concerned they're allowed to make their own division and to dis-invite whomever they want to, whether that be men or tranny gender.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

We don't really know why women wanted their own chess division in the first place. Because, we don't care. Far as I'm concerned they're allowed to make their own division and to dis-invite whomever they want to, whether that be men or tranny gender.

;)

The women kicked out men.  The men kick out women who used to be men from playing women.  We don't care.

 

Innes, in his grave, tosses and turns...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

The women kicked out men.  The men kick out women who used to be men from playing women.  We don't care.

 

Innes, in his grave, tosses and turns...


Women wanted to make their own chess division. It was their choice. They excluded men, and now they want to exclude tranny men, because they believe it is the same thing as a man, and that is what they have chosen to exclude. From this pov it seems kinda rational.

Now replace chess with boxing...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The women kicked out men.  The men kick out women who used to be men from playing women.  We don't care.

 

Innes, in his grave, tosses and turns...

You don't care.  Innis's thoughts are unknown to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:


Women wanted to make their own chess division. It was their choice. They excluded men, and now they want to exclude tranny men, because they believe it is the same thing as a man, and that is what they have chosen to exclude. From this pov it seems kinda rational.

Now replace chess with boxing...

And this is the thing.

I'm sure mike feels as tho this is some sort of 'gotcha' but it just isn't. 

For whatever reason,  women decided they wanted to compete with other women only in this sport. And they told men they couldn't play.  They should have every right to say trans women can't play either.  If it's prejudice or exclusionary or sexist to say trans women can't play then it's just as much to say men can't play - and we don't have a problem with that.

Exclusions, where they exist in sports, should be based on your biological birth sex and not what you wear today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't, but let's be honest that people in general didn't.

Innis' question wasn't answered by him.  McLuhan tried.  My best guess is that we're rediscovering a tribal bond that the medium uncovers.

Let's be honest, those who care, care, and those who don't, don't.  People in general have really not had a lot of time to figure it out either way and I still have no idea why you insist that we are all wasting our time giving a hoot. 

Anyway, we're not going to agree on that point, so you can have the last word.

As for Innis, the answer is "well Harold, it's because we do".  If one is going to ask the most general question in the history of questions, one should expect a general answer.

(Apparently it was a professor of his, one James Ten Brooke, who posed the question)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2023 at 9:17 AM, 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.

And here comes Chairman Hardner again to once again tell us that a discussion people are having does not interest him and should not be taking place. Oh, if only he had the ban hammer again!

On 11/17/2023 at 11:06 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Trans women's boxing matters almost nothing in that context, and I'm offended by the space being given to these topics. 

So LEAVE.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours 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'

In other words, you're all for freedom of speech as long as it's speech you agree with. And if not, then it ought to be banned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm pro-transgender people but in that way that Conservatives are:

Virtually no conservatives are pro-transgender, which you would know if you were a conservative.

Your continued nonsense about being conservative is fooling no one here. No one considers you conservative on any issue. Certainly not on any social policy issue.

23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

preserve our institutions and tolerate those who can't accept the newness of this phenomenon to a point.

Your tolerance for those who won't accept this 'new phenomenon' is approximately zero. if you were in charge here there would be no discussions like this allowed and I think everyone here knows that.

Edited by I am Groot
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Aristides said:

When do women's sports stop being women's sports.

https://tnc.news/2023/08/15/trans-powerlifter-world-record/

Yeah, this guy amply demonstrates the kind of losers who decide to pretend they're women and then enter womens sports where they have an enormous advantage. Breaking the world record by 200kg. Gee, what a powerful... WOMAN. And the federation reacts to a female weightlifter complaining about it by banning her for two years. 

A male weightlifting coach declared himself to be a woman for a day in March just to demonstrate how totally ridiculous this all was. He shattered the previous record held by... guess who? This same loser 'trans woman'.

https://www.sportbible.com/other/male-enters-womens-powerlifting-event-and-shatters-record-848829-20230330

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
      10,753
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Matthew
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • 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
  • Recently Browsing

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