Female Boxer Refuses to Fight Trans Opponent in Canadian Championship Match

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I know it's only a matter of time before I'm a lying sack of crap so I try to get a little creative.  It wasn't wrong.

 

Wasn't really right either.  And it's hilarious that you  have a plan to lie and wanted to get a head start

Quote

Nor was I wrong about transgender dysphoria.  You are.  In fact, you pretty much say so in the rest of your post.

I'd worry more about your comprehension skills than your truthfulness at this point.  You are wrong and no, what i said doesn't claim otherwise. As much as they like to try to dance around it for the specifically stated purpose of trying to 'reduce the stygma'  as I said - there can't be a pathology without an illness.

When people got over the stupidity of thinking that gays were an 'illness' (which lasted a very short time)  that was it. There was no new 'illness' to replace it.  You didn't have 'gay dysphoria' showing up regularly. They were just gays again, as they always had been. Nobody sensible and certainly nobody medical thought there was any illness at all.

But - when they changed the name to "gender disphoria" ...  we've still got an illness left. It's still dysphoria. And frequently crippling - as in they cannot function without addressing it.  Do you notice how we dont' have  "homosexual dysphoria" as a major problem out there? Or large numbers of people with 'hetero dysphoria"? 

Gays don't have to have an operation to feel natural in their own skin. Heteros don't.   Trans people very frequently do - certainly most want to.  That's dysfunctional, that's not a healthy thing.

Sugar coat it to your heart's content but Gender dysphoria only happens in trans people and it happens very frequently in trans people - the MAJORITY of trans people experience it.  So to claim it's not directly associated with it would simply be putting lipstick on a pig to make yourself feel better politically.

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Wasn't really right either.  And it's hilarious that you  have a plan to lie and wanted to get a head start

It was really right.  And I'm pretty sure the Sun's coming up today too.  Actual lying doesn't enter into it.

 

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I'd worry more about your comprehension skills than your truthfulness at this point.  You are wrong and no, what i said doesn't claim otherwise. As much as they like to try to dance around it for the specifically stated purpose of trying to 'reduce the stygma'  as I said - there can't be a pathology without an illness.

When people got over the stupidity of thinking that gays were an 'illness' (which lasted a very short time)  that was it. There was no new 'illness' to replace it.  You didn't have 'gay dysphoria' showing up regularly. They were just gays again, as they always had been. Nobody sensible and certainly nobody medical thought there was any illness at all.

But - when they changed the name to "gender disphoria" ...  we've still got an illness left. It's still dysphoria. And frequently crippling - as in they cannot function without addressing it.  Do you notice how we dont' have  "homosexual dysphoria" as a major problem out there? Or large numbers of people with 'hetero dysphoria"? 

Gays don't have to have an operation to feel natural in their own skin. Heteros don't.   Trans people very frequently do - certainly most want to.  That's dysfunctional, that's not a healthy thing.

Sugar coat it to your heart's content but Gender dysphoria only happens in trans people and it happens very frequently in trans people - the MAJORITY of trans people experience it.  So to claim it's not directly associated with it would simply be putting lipstick on a pig to make yourself feel better politically.

It doesn't matter how many paragraphs you devote to it, you can't change the facts.  I told you the facts in my last post.  It's obvious you don't like it.  But you don't have to.

Just to avoid one LSOC accusation, could you directly quote me claiming transgender disphoria is not directly associated to the transgender condition?

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I support teaching about it in school, at a level where other sexual or humanities subjects are taught.

The reason it should not be taught in school is as I have said LGBT is not normal.  Is is contrary to historic Judeo-Christian beliefs and contrary to the biological function of mankind.  The fact that the school system is full of people who do not hold Christian moral beliefs of what is right and wrong also means a moral issue such as sex should not be taught in school.  That should be left to parents.  Society is deeply divided on what is right and what is wrong.  Many believe pre-marital sex is acceptable;  others disagree and belief the Biblical principle that sex is to be only within the strict confines of marriage between a man and woman.  Schools do not respect this principle.  Consequently, they are contributing to the decay of  the social order, i.e. the nuclear family made up of a man and woman and their children.  

Edited November 20, 2023 by blackbird

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The reason it should not be taught in school is as I have said LGBT is not normal.  Is is contrary to historic Judeo-Christian beliefs and contrary to the biological function of mankind.  The fact that the school system is full of people who do not hold Christian moral beliefs of what is right and wrong also means a moral issue such as sex should not be taught in school.  That should be left to parents.  Society is deeply divided on what is right and what is wrong.  Many believe pre-marital sex is acceptable;  others disagree and belief the Biblical principle that sex is to be only within the strict confines of marriage between a man and woman.  Schools do not respect this principle.  Consequently, they are contributing to the decay of  the social order, i.e. the nuclear family made up of a man and woman and their children.  

Yeah, neither your views nor your Judeo-Christian beliefs actually matter.

[blackbird]

57 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, neither your views nor your Judeo-Christian beliefs actually matter.

Of course they don't matter to a confessed admitted atheist or someone who mocks Biblical Christianity and such beliefs.  It is one thing to be skeptical or question the Bible, but it is entirely another to mock believers.  That puts one openly on the side of evil.  

But if you want to know the consequences of the breakdown of the family structure and the sexual revolution, you don't have to look hard to see them.   We have very high divorce rates, abortion on demand with around 100,000 abortions per year in Canada, youth illicit sex is common,  domestic violence is very common in Canada, intimate partner violence and murder, youth growing up out of control, and rampant crime and sexual violence such as rape.  All these things are linked to the breakdown of the social order which is tied to the abandonment of Christian beliefs.  The huge drug addiction problem with accompanying overdose deaths is another result.  Tent cities full of homeless people in the major cities is another problem.  Governments placing individual freedom above public safety is another problem caused by lack of Christian beliefs.  Medical assistance in dying is another result.  Over 13,000 people per year now being killed by MAID.  All problems can be traced back to the decay of morality and collapse of Judeo-Christian civilization in the world.  

Edited November 20, 2023 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, neither your views nor your Judeo-Christian beliefs actually matter.

I'm still looking at the media angle on this.  Isn't it a little strange that there's no comment on this from any official boxing sources and no coverage other than tabloids ?  

I for one think so.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm still looking at the media angle on this.  Isn't it a little strange that there's no comment on this from any official boxing sources and no coverage other than tabloids ?  

I for one think so.

But... but... but..., weren't you saying that the issue wasn't worth major media coverage?  Aren't you getting exactly what you want?

That doesn't mean that anyone who argued on here that the issue matters is wrong.  They, to a poster, were arguing that the issue is very important to the people it affects, which it is. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1. But... but... but..., weren't you saying that the issue wasn't worth major media coverage?  Aren't you getting exactly what you want?

2. That doesn't mean that anyone who argued on here that the issue matters is wrong. 

3. They, to a poster, were arguing that the issue is very important to the people it affects, which it is. 

1. I would say so, if The Millennial and the tabloids weren't major media.  If they aren't... and maybe they aren't... then we're saying that we shouldn't/people shouldn't/people don't take sh1trags like them seriously.  And that would make me happy because it would mean that there is a meaningful and influential body of journalism emerging from social media.
2. I don't care who is wrong or right on this.  I think I already said I agree with the ban... when I glanced at some of my ignored chud pals' comments they seemed to be saying I was against it ?  Not sure I didn't look twice.
3. And yet they are on here because, I suspect, they hate trans people and if a trans kid in Siberia asked to use the bathroom corresponding to their new gender they would be posting in all caps.  That's because they are Chuds and will always be Chuds.  They don't care about other people and the news is just a venue for them to be entertained at watching people suffer.

[blackbird]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They don't care about other people and the news is just a venue for them to be entertained at watching people suffer.

People who are have gender dysphoria are the ones suffering because of the mental illness and they have the highest rates of suicide.  Their families also are suffering as they watch helplessly.  So who cares more for people?  The ones who disagree with sexual orientation being promoted or the ones who support it?  The best way to care for people is to discourage that kind of thing being promoted.

Edited November 20, 2023 by blackbird

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I would say so, if The Millennial and the tabloids weren't major media.  If they aren't... and maybe they aren't... then we're saying that we shouldn't/people shouldn't/people don't take sh1trags like them seriously.  And that would make me happy because it would mean that there is a meaningful and influential body of journalism emerging from social media.
2. I don't care who is wrong or right on this.  I think I already said I agree with the ban... when I glanced at some of my ignored chud pals' comments they seemed to be saying I was against it ?  Not sure I didn't look twice.
3. And yet they are on here because, I suspect, they hate trans people and if a trans kid in Siberia asked to use the bathroom corresponding to their new gender they would be posting in all caps.  That's because they are Chuds and will always be Chuds.  They don't care about other people and the news is just a venue for them to be entertained at watching people suffer.

Well, I've never heard of The Millenial, but I don't take tabloids seriously.  That doesn't mean that events they report on should not be taken seriously, if they should.  One must discriminate.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

People who are have gender dysphoria are the ones suffering because of the mental illness and they have the highest rates of suicide.  Their families also are suffering as they watch helplessly.  So who cares more for people?  The ones who disagree with sexual orientation being promoted or the ones who support it?  

OK, but you can't say with any certainty that the condition itself causes depression versus collateral effects of social disapproval.  

It's not sexual 'orientation', it's gender and it's not being 'promoted'.  If you want to discuss things seriously use the right words.

I won't say any individual cares/doesn't care, with certainty.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well, I've never heard of The Millenial, but I don't take tabloids seriously.  That doesn't mean that events they report on should not be taken seriously, if they should.  One must discriminate.

It's the discrimination that is the detail I'm interested in.  They *might* have something interesting to say but there are red flags, such as no official response and no coverage... Not even the trans-baiting National Post who milked the breasts of Jessica Yaniv for outrage-views in 2019 until everybody got sick of her.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's the discrimination that is the detail I'm interested in.  They *might* have something interesting to say but there are red flags, such as no official response and no coverage... Not even the trans-baiting National Post who milked the breasts of Jessica Yaniv for outrage-views in 2019 until everybody got sick of her.

Ah.  Is it your contention that the OP might be wrong?

It's not that you have a problem with reporting on trans women attempting to play women's sports, but rather, the medium reporting on it has got it wrong or is not giving a full and comprehensive report including all sides of the argument?  You assume this because no MSM has picked up the story?

I admit to simplifying the argument.  I read the post, not the link, and figured ok, that's wrong, and it happens quite a lot.  And went from there.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

It was really right.  And I'm pretty sure the Sun's coming up today too.  Actual lying doesn't enter into it.

 

Who said you were lying?

Oh - just trying to distract. Got it.
At any rate - no, not really right.  And sure the sun comes up today, but trying to claim it's not hot would be stupid woudln't it.

Quote

It doesn't matter how many paragraphs you devote to it, you can't change the facts.  I told you the facts in my last post.  It's obvious you don't like it.  But you don't have to.

No matter how much you try to ignore it, i actually gave you the facts.  Facts you can't disprove or even argue.

Quote

Just to avoid one LSOC accusation, could you directly quote me claiming transgender disphoria is not directly associated to the transgender condition?

Well lets save ourselves some time - do i understand that you now are saying that gender disphoria is directly tied to transgenderism?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Who said you were lying?

Oh - just trying to distract. Got it.
At any rate - no, not really right.  And sure the sun comes up today, but trying to claim it's not hot would be stupid woudln't it.

No matter how much you try to ignore it, i actually gave you the facts.  Facts you can't disprove or even argue.

Well lets save ourselves some time - do i understand that you now are saying that gender disphoria is directly tied to transgenderism?

I think a reasonable course of action would be to contine this discussion after you directly quote me claiming transgender disphoria is not directly associated to the transgender condition.

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think a reasonable course of action would be to contine this discussion after you directly quote me claiming transgender disphoria is not directly associated to the transgender condition.

ROFLMAO -  there's nothing reasonable about that - what would be reasonable is you clarifying your position so there's no room for doubt.

But suddenly you're afraid to do that    And I think we both know why  

Well that proves my point just as well    Can't even be straight forward and honest about your opinion

Gender dysphoria is a very serious condition and it's part and parcel of being transgendered.  The only question seems to be how extreme it will present.  You can't have a pathology without an illness.

So unlike being gay - transgenderism is not a healthy mental state. These are people with a serious mental health vulnerability and that is VERY different than being gay.

And you realize that or you'd have  happliy clarified your position    LOL, nice try 

[Michael Hardner]

48 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1. Ah.  Is it your contention that the OP might be wrong?

2. It's not that you have a problem with [2a] reporting on trans women attempting to play women's sports, but rather, [2b] the medium reporting on it has got it wrong or [2c] is not giving a full and comprehensive report including all sides of the argument? 

3. You assume this because no MSM has picked up the story?

4. I admit to simplifying the argument.  I read the post, not the link, and figured ok, that's wrong, and it happens quite a lot.  And went from there.

1. The original POST or POSTER ?  The OP only quotes a report that I can't dispute then adds "Looks like lots of women athletes have had enough of this sh*t"  I guess I think that they are likely right ?
2. [2a] I don't have a problem with some coverage of it but every single incident getting international coverage as soon as something happens isn't a healthy public sphere IMO and [2b] they may have it wrong, but the "media" (referring to the channels here) probably need to get healthier and more responsible and [2c] yeah I doubt they are.  

If those channels were closer to real journalists they would probably respond the way the National Post did, ie. to not do.

3. I assume that if the MSM cover it, they are doing due diligence at this time.  There is something to be learned about the timing of coverage - for both Chud-friendly and Chud-unfriendly stories.

4. I don't know how often it happens, or where the discussion actually happens.  It's not like Chud media shouldn't take their shot, though.  I don't think the discussion is worthy of a populist free-for-all but the organizations often bring this upon themselves by trying to shut down any level of discussion, including that involving people actually affected.  

[Army Guy]

On 11/19/2023 at 7:39 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm talking about the topic of the public sphere, apart from hot issues like Jessica Yaniv or trans shop teachers...

2. Well, I get what you're saying... And for sure you will never see a newspaper without, say, an astrology column.. but I have seen people on here, for example, complaining that people care too much about Hollywood Gossip. 

That might be a parallel problem.  Do you ever think that there's an important issue not getting enough attention?  How might that be looked at?  Maybe if we ask why things are covered, we can get ourselves to consider those issues that don't get enough play.

Regardless of topics most readers or posters are only venting on this forum, regardless of topic, we would only be kidding ourselves if we thought we could make a difference or influence any important , let alone petty topics that come to air in this nation on this very forum.......With that in mind people like to vent with like minded people , or sway others to their view...but in reality how much difference will all of us on this forum have on these national or local issues...most likely none...

Yes there are plenty of issues that I think personally are important, like veterans rights or our nations Military...They do not get enough attention national, but in reality these topics do not interest many Canadians for many reasons.... I think most Canadians are each in their own bubbles, if these problems do effect be it emotionally or in real life then they may give it a passing glance, or might take the time to post about it on a forum but "tommorrow" they will be quickly forgotten until a new issue comes up...very few will actually take some action, like protest or scream at people in the streets...the rest of us come here to scream into the wind, vent and move on with reality...

They are covered becasue they enlist an emotional outburst, that may or may not conflict with our morals or values, or give a f*ck factor...

Maybe not getting the play they need is becasue of fear, fear of getting canceled, fear of back lash, fear of taking more time than each of us are willing to commit to on issue. Fear of not being heard but just shouted down... some topics are just not worth the grief...

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

1. we thought we could make a difference or influence any important ,  

2. Yes there are plenty of issues that I think personally are important, like veterans rights or our nations Military...They do not get enough attention national, but in reality these topics do not interest many Canadians for many reasons

1. We don't, but on a grand scale discussions bubble up and create topics that "the" public pays attention to.
2. But they really really should.  Our military leadership, as with leadership of many organizations is something we should discuss and not put up with.  Great example.  I do try to read every post on that topic as I don't know enough about it.

Really we should be making it admirable for people to pay attention to such things...

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The original POST or POSTER ?  The OP only quotes a report that I can't dispute then adds "Looks like lots of women athletes have had enough of this sh*t"  I guess I think that they are likely right ?
2. [2a] I don't have a problem with some coverage of it but every single incident getting international coverage as soon as something happens isn't a healthy public sphere IMO and [2b] they may have it wrong, but the "media" (referring to the channels here) probably need to get healthier and more responsible and [2c] yeah I doubt they are.  

If those channels were closer to real journalists they would probably respond the way the National Post did, ie. to not do.

3. I assume that if the MSM cover it, they are doing due diligence at this time.  There is something to be learned about the timing of coverage - for both Chud-friendly and Chud-unfriendly stories.

4. I don't know how often it happens, or where the discussion actually happens.  It's not like Chud media shouldn't take their shot, though.  I don't think the discussion is worthy of a populist free-for-all but the organizations often bring this upon themselves by trying to shut down any level of discussion, including that involving people actually affected.  

I think the media covers what it covers based on a number of criteria.  Editorial bias, economics, advertiser preferences, etc.  I could not find (cursory search) the incident in the OP on any of the media I typically use for my news.  So I would not have heard about it were it not for the OP.  (strangely enough, I did find an article concerning exactly the same situation, but with regards to pool, not boxing)

That said, if the basic facts of the case are as reported in the OP, and I feel strongly enough about the issue to comment, as do quite a few others, I'm still not sure what the issue is with that.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1. I think the media covers what it covers based on a number of criteria.  Editorial bias, economics, advertiser preferences, etc.  I could not find (cursory search) the incident in the OP on any of the media I typically use for my news.  So I would not have heard about it were it not for the OP.  (strangely enough, I did find an article concerning exactly the same situation, but with regards to pool, not boxing)

2. That said, if the basic facts of the case are as reported in the OP, and I feel strongly enough about the issue to comment, as do quite a few others, I'm still not sure what the issue is with that.

1. Sure ... what's to be wrong/right about it though with regards to your question ?  Maybe the question is "does the press serve our needs anymore in the era of social media ?".

2. The issue is that, for example, our prisons, our universities, our military (as AG states), our healthcare system are falling apart and we do. not. care.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[Zeitgeist]

Our institutions are falling apart because we stopped worrying about what’s important, such as a military having good morale and being well equipped or schools having rigorous education or any government service actually delivering that service effectively.  Instead we are worried about identifying and giving special treatment to designated victim groups: trans people, lesbian/gay, BIPOC, etc.  Jobs have become sinecures to be handed out based on the central committee’s discernment of one’s victimhood.  It’s destroying our meritocracy, breeding contempt among the population, and making us uncompetitive.

It’s painfully obvious that this trans woman’s (man’s) inclusion in a female weightlifting competition undermines the very notion of women’s sports. It strips women of their status and is patently unfair.  This kind of scenario is playing out across organizations all the time now.   The trans example is just one facet of our society’s destructive obsession with identity politics.  

Edited November 20, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Instead we are worried about identifying and giving special treatment to designated victim groups: trans people, lesbian/gay, BIPOC, etc.

I think this is a very underrated problem. 

The idea was supposedly "inclusion".  But the reality is when you set one group on a pedestal  seperate from everyone else that's not inclusive, it's EX-clusive.  it's not 'adding' someone to a goup, it's segregating the group.

Setting aside women's rights, having special days for some groups and not others, all of this just says "these people are different than you, and you don't count as much as they do".  Which is the opposite of what they were supposed to be achieving.

The only thing worse than being non inclusiuve is being OVER inclusive - to the point where it's divisive.  You think these women are going to be 'pro trans' right now?

[I am Groot]

20 hours ago, Aristides said:

How much fly in your soup is acceptable to you is of no consequence to anyone but you unless you are trying to force them to eat your soup.

If the fly is in your culture or nation and grows bigger every day it becomes rather difficult to ignore. Why is Trudeau reportedly having so much trouble with his cabinet over the Gaza-Israeli issue? How many members of Trudeau's cabinet are not from Canada?

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm still looking at the media angle on this.  Isn't it a little strange that there's no comment on this from any official boxing sources and no coverage other than tabloids ?  

I for one think so.

Because virtually all the reporters and editors working for the major media in Canada are progressives like you and support transgenderism everywhere without constraint - like you do. They don't report on things like this much, any more than they'll report on the oddity of how many criminals are clearly immigrants. Or how many of the hate crimes being committed against Jews and Gays are coming from Muslim immigrants.

I found one report from notorious columnist Barbara Kay in the Post over the weekend mentioning that virtually every incident of hate crime against Jews where the police have caught someone in Quebec has been someone from North Africa. But don't expect the media to echo that or even investigate it. 

Like you, they feel this is the sort of thing people should not only not know about, but not be allowed to know about.

Edited November 20, 2023 by I am Groot