Jump to content

Transgenderism and sports


Recommended Posts

I was watching a video the other day and they were talking about men who say they are women and competing in women's sports. Specifically they were talking about the swimmer Thompson. It's lea if I'm not mistaken. So I got to thinking that this person was a man but is now supposedly a woman competing against women but why? If genitals don't determine gender and gender is a social construct and women can compete with men, why didn't this Thompson person just keep competing with the same people he/she was competing against before realizing he/she was a woman? Why did he/she go to compete against women?

Edited by Yakuda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2024 at 3:33 PM, Yakuda said:

Why did he/she go to compete against women?

Because the NCAA wanted to be woke so allowed it to happen.

Proof there is a massive gap in either gender.

As a male, she barely placed in the top 400.

As a female, she was smashing records left and right, beating women by huge margins.

I kind of see it like playing sports with a toddler, and letting then win, then all of a sudden doing your best to humiliate them. 

Thats what watching trans women competing vs women looks like to me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Because the NCAA wanted to be woke so allowed it to happen.

Proof there is a massive gap in either gender.

As a male, she barely placed in the top 400.

As a female, she was smashing records left and right, beating women by huge margins.

I kind of see it like playing sports with a toddler, and letting then win, then all of a sudden doing your best to humiliate them. 

Thats what watching trans women competing vs women looks like to me.

So youre saying transfreakism is bullshit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Yakuda said:

So youre saying transfreakism is bullshit? 

Being trans is real. Gender dysphoria is very real. 

Most in society never had an issue with this.

Its the circus surrounding the fact that all of a sudden, governments and activists are pushing this ideology, as an opportunistic means of further controlling their population.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Being trans is real. Gender dysphoria is very real. 

Most in society never had an issue with this.

Its the circus surrounding the fact that all of a sudden, governments and activists are pushing this ideology, as an opportunistic means of further controlling their population.  

Gender dysphoria night be, yes.  "Being trans" isn't. It's based on the bogus idea that because a tiny number of people are born intersex that's means gender MUST be in a "spectrum". There is no evidence for it and there is even less evidence for the 37 or whatever number of "genders" which supposedly exists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

"Being trans" isn't.

Gender dysphoria is very real. I personally know quite a few trans people. Its a mental health issue. Instead of pushing treatment, its easier to demonize you for not seeing a person how they feel inside.

There is no spectrum, that's the point am making. Thats the ideology.

Harder to call someone a crossdresser when they identify as female. A guy throws a skirt and heels on, and is a woman. Period. NO QUESTIONS!

Easier to silence people, when you state there are unlimited genders. Questions make you transphobic. 

That, any disagreement, would come with firm and fierce rebukes. Doxxing. Losing your job.

If these people get their way, arrests.

That's precisely why crimes against the trans community have spiked, sadly.

Activists don't understand the law of the unintended consequences. 

They claim to protect the people they have further had targeted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Being trans is real. Gender dysphoria is very real. 

Most in society never had an issue with this.

Its the circus surrounding the fact that all of a sudden, governments and activists are pushing this ideology, as an opportunistic means of further controlling their population.  

And there's the rub. There wasn't  problem with transgenderism being a thing or gender dysphoria being a serious medical issue in need of treatment. And society was willing to accomodate that 'little white lie' about a man being a woman to a point

But then they started insisting going way beyond that. We must accept that they WERE women. That they were identical to biological women, and that saying otherwise was a hate crime. And that children had to be raised to be encouraged to consider changing gender and that if they did then we should start snipping body parts and chemically altering them.

Then the so called 'trans rights' started bumping into other people's rights and there was a problem. And thats' where we're at now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Then the so called 'trans rights' started bumping into other people's rights

Literally erasing female rights, to accommodate these people. 

Anyone fighting for their rights, are met with vitriol, violence if not worse, is easier to remain quiet.

You literally cannot be assigned a gender at birth.

A toddler can't pick their gender. 

Kids change preferences about things literally daily. 

Universities are eradicating critical thinking. To me, that's the most dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Literally erasing female rights, to accommodate these people. 

Anyone fighting for their rights, are met with vitriol, violence if not worse, is easier to remain quiet.

You literally cannot be assigned a gender at birth.

A toddler can't pick their gender. 

Kids change preferences about things literally daily. 

Universities are eradicating critical thinking. To me, that's the most dangerous.

All of that is true. Sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Gender dysphoria is very real. I personally know quite a few trans people. Its a mental health issue. Instead of pushing treatment, its easier to demonize you for not seeing a person how they feel inside.

There is no spectrum, that's the point am making. Thats the ideology.

Harder to call someone a crossdresser when they identify as female. A guy throws a skirt and heels on, and is a woman. Period. NO QUESTIONS!

Easier to silence people, when you state there are unlimited genders. Questions make you transphobic. 

That, any disagreement, would come with firm and fierce rebukes. Doxxing. Losing your job.

If these people get their way, arrests.

That's precisely why crimes against the trans community have spiked, sadly.

Activists don't understand the law of the unintended consequences. 

They claim to protect the people they have further had targeted.

How people identify doesn't require the rest of us to play along. There are people who really struggle with this but the VAST majority of people who are "trans" are playing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 3/13/2024 at 12:08 PM, Perspektiv said:

Its the circus surrounding the fact that all of a sudden, governments and activists are pushing this ideology, as an opportunistic means of further controlling their population. 

All of a sudden? Governments and activists have been using every opportunity under the sun to control us for years and years now or so we're told.  As a lefty however I just don't feel the control. That said it seems its never been easier to make right-wingers jump 10 feet in the air over something. It's just you folks that are being controlled.

You aren't surrounding a circus you're the synchronized dolphins at Sea World. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

All of a sudden? Governments and activists have been using every opportunity under the sun to control us for years and years now or so we're told.  As a lefty however I just don't feel the control. That said it seems its never been easier to make right-wingers jump 10 feet in the air over something. It's just you folks that are being controlled.

You aren't surrounding a circus you're the synchronized dolphins at Sea World. 

Nothing makes a leftie squeal quite like when someone stands up and says 'maybe you shouldn't tell others what to do' ;) 

"You MUST accept this medical treatment or we'll destroy your life! You MUST participate in celebrating pride day or you'll be punished!  You MUST use the language chosen for you or be accused of hate crime! You do NOT have any rights as parents and you must submit to the schools choosing what happens with your children without consultation!!!"

"we're not ok with being controlled like that'.

"Controlled?!??  where....  where is THAT coming from???"  (shocked pikachu face!)

 If the left hasn't been trying to control anything - then i'm sure they won't complain when the right starts to undo some of those 'controls' seeing as they don't exist :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If the left hasn't been trying to control anything - then i'm sure they won't complain when the right starts to undo some of those 'controls' seeing as they don't exist

No you clearly misunderstood my post. Its you guys the left is 'controlling' if you can even call it that.  All anyone has to do is push a social button or flip an economic switch and..."Look at you go!"

It's not so much that right-wingers are under control you're way more out of control - of yourselves mostly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No you clearly misunderstood my post.

I understand just fine, oh butthurt one. :)

Quote

Its you guys the left is 'controlling' if you can even call it that.  All anyone has to do is push a social button or flip an economic switch and..."Look at you go!"

Yeah, I got that that's what you were trying to say. This is exactly what I responded to, the "oh let's pretend that there really isn't anything actually happening and that they're overreacting" gambit that the left loves so much.

All I did was point out that you're completely full of shit.

But hey, if nobody is actually trying to exercise any kind of control over anyone else then he won't mind or even notice when all of that gets undone. Right? :)  

 

Quote

It's not so much that right-wingers are under control you're way more out of control - of yourselves mostly.

LOL  sure little guy. You've been saying it for decades right? :)

after 10 years of woke government your little world is coming crashing down on you and people have realized that your ideals are morally bankrupt and lead to the ruin of people financially and their freedoms. And you realize it's about to come crashing to a halt and you're bitter. And you'd like to blame the right for the fact that your own policies failed so terribly.

Don't blame the right for the fact that you're deranged social experiments turned out to be a disaster or that people are turning away from that kind of thinking in droves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

Its you guys

If you're part of the hysteria, you're no different.

Its a lot easier to be calm about something when your party is in power. 

Never forget:

image.thumb.png.86cd04200e57f2e2fd3ad2862b9a22b5.png

There's a word for this. It escapes me. I think it rhymes with hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

 

image.thumb.png.86cd04200e57f2e2fd3ad2862b9a22b5.png

 

Making arguments with pictures and videos has, in our intellectually lazy society, become an acceptable political exchange.   Stereotypes don't substitute for arguments and points of consideration because they simply paint the opposition as not worth dealing with.  This happens on all sides, and I saw posts with idi0tic looking MAGA or Convoy supporters.

It's anti-politics and for a LONG time, moderator Anthony didn't even allow images on here for that reason.

Unless you are arguing that the person in the picture looks ugly, there's nowhere to go with posting a picture of someone you are against.  Post a picture of your handsome self if you think that pictures of adherents to a side are critically important.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just read this the other day and looked for the approp. topic to post it in:

From MMA fighter Tamikka Brents after biological male Fallon Fox fractured her skull while, (quite literally) beating her senseless - 

image.thumb.png.15b4eaba9b6198e3f493580f18150315.png

What kind of biological male demands to play collision sports or fight with biological women and then persists in doing so even after injuring them over and over? 

Even after this guy broke her skull, she was too scared to just stand up and say “This was unfair because Fox is a man.”

What does it tell the women who get hurt like this, to be told that they cannot complain or they’re a TERF?

Just take your beating like a man? Is that where this really ought to go?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2024 at 4:15 PM, Goddess said:

I just read this the other day and looked for the approp. topic to post it in:

From MMA fighter Tamikka Brents after biological male Fallon Fox fractured her skull while, (quite literally) beating her senseless - 

image.thumb.png.15b4eaba9b6198e3f493580f18150315.png

What kind of biological male demands to play collision sports or fight with biological women and then persists in doing so even after injuring them over and over? 

Even after this guy broke her skull, she was too scared to just stand up and say “This was unfair because Fox is a man.”

What does it tell the women who get hurt like this, to be told that they cannot complain or they’re a TERF?

Just take your beating like a man? Is that where this really ought to go?

It is not just collision sports. What kind of man celebrates setting records by beating women in any women's sport? It is just as wrong for all the same underlying reasons. Its just that it should be beyond obviously wrong watching a man beat up a woman. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2024 at 2:35 AM, Perspektiv said:

Because the NCAA wanted to be woke so allowed it to happen.

Proof there is a massive gap in either gender.

As a male, she barely placed in the top 400.

As a female, she was smashing records left and right, beating women by huge margins.

I kind of see it like playing sports with a toddler, and letting then win, then all of a sudden doing your best to humiliate them. 

Thats what watching trans women competing vs women looks like to me.

Totaly agree with you here, in my opinion the reasonbale solution, without excluding transgender people would be to instead of gedner starrting to catagorize competitions like these after a measurement like weight-class or something else  that is NOT sexn related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 8:09 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Making arguments with pictures and videos

My argument was made with words, and the pictures pointed to people on an opposing spectrum, struggling to accept the reality they were facing from that said opposition.

There were meltdowns from people in the media, entertainment, and as per illustration, the population as well.

Am quite confident most posters got the point. I used a poster child, to reflect the point I was making. If you didn't connect the dots, it isn't due to my laziness.

On 4/11/2024 at 8:09 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Stereotypes

This isn't a stereotype. It's clearly a real life caricature. Same thing as you calling people chuds. Any derogatory terms you use, point to a caricature.

If I have to point out that not all left thinking individuals conducted themselves in this way, and enumerate how the post was not to be taken literally since am pointing to hypocrisy, it is you being lazy, and refusing to read between the lines.

On 4/11/2024 at 8:09 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Unless you are arguing that the person in the picture looks ugly

Am arguing the fact that either political side had hysteria attached to it. Proving my point with a picture, I could have posted more to solidify my point. From the media, to comedians to entertainment, shining light on hysteria on the other side.

The picture was just the point being made. Not a sweeping statement. 

You not liking it, isn't my problem. I fail to see the laziness in it, if one explains their point in depth.

Maybe (ironically enough), you should lighten up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. My argument was made with words, and the pictures pointed to people on an opposing spectrum, struggling to accept the reality they were facing from that said opposition.

2. Am quite confident most posters got the point. I used a poster child, to reflect the point I was making. If you didn't connect the dots, it isn't due to my laziness.

3. This isn't a stereotype. It's clearly a real life caricature. Same thing as you calling people chuds. Any derogatory terms you use, point to a caricature.

4. If I have to point out that not all left thinking individuals conducted themselves in this way, and enumerate how the post was not to be taken literally since am pointing to hypocrisy, it is you being lazy, and refusing to read between the lines.

5. Am arguing the fact that either political side had hysteria attached to it. Proving my point with a picture, I could have posted more to solidify my point. From the media, to comedians to entertainment, shining light on hysteria on the other side.

6. You not liking it, isn't my problem. I fail to see the laziness in it, if one explains their point in depth.

7. Maybe (ironically enough), you should lighten up?

1. You closed with "Never forget..." and a picture.  So your closing point is "look at a picture of this person".  
2. I also got the point, but I stand by what I said: you can't point at a picture of a person and use that as an argument.  That's propaganda methodology.  Arguments are made from data, evidence... not taking a picture of a single damaged person and saying "see ?"
3. I define Chud as a class of people who are proudly ignorant.  It's not a single person.  A picture isn't a definition.  Use words.  We even used to have a rule here that said no pictures, in the golden era.
4. Then what are you doing ?  For every image you post there's a counter-image of the opposing viewpoint that also serves no purpose.
5. Nope.  The fact that you're using comedians as a parallel says it all.  If you were trying to make people laugh, maybe you'd have a point.
6. It's not whether I like it or not.  It's about your whole way of posting here... it's all about people you know personally, archetypes and stereotypes, and droning on about your experiences.  If you want to pick out damaged people on the other side, then I'm going to pick on you...  You are unable to make arguments unless you are part of the picture.
7. Well... maybe... you've got me there.  I don't usually respond to this stuff negatively unless I'm in a bad mood.  Like when I've been sick all weekend and I can't find anything truly interesting on here to comment on.  Cheers anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

your closing point is "look at a picture of this person".  

.....ooor, "Look. Hysteria from democrats".

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

you can't point at a picture of a person and use that as an argument.  That's propaganda methodology. 

Sure you can. If that picture stands for something, the symbolism enough is sufficient to be included in an argument.

That woman in question even, understands she has become a meme for what some deem to be SJW snowflakes, albeit it wasn't her intent. Even she is aware of this.

When a picture speaks powerfully, I am confused as to why I wouldn't use it.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I define Chud as a class of people who are proudly ignorant. 

You're doing with a word, what I did with a picture.

I say "a Karen stopped me in the parking lot, because my car has a loud V8 engine" and most automatically know how the exchange likely went. 

Am I saying all white women are Karen's? Am I insulting women named Karen? Or am I painting a picture with words or if done online, could use a picture, to give you insight on what am talking about. Not sure how this is wrong, unless that's all I post.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not whether I like it or not. 

I don't see how its not.

If you have an issue with how I post, I am totally confused here.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

unless I'm in a bad mood

My wife has periods, so her moodiness is justified. 

Whats your excuse? 

I wake up in a good mood every single day. There is literally not a reason for me to be in a bad mood, unless someone affects my good mood. Am incredibly grateful for my blessings.

I wake up singing. Would be dancing if not wanting to wake the wife up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Sure you can. If that picture stands for something, the symbolism enough is sufficient to be included in an argument.

2. When a picture speaks powerfully, I am confused as to why I wouldn't use it.

3. You're doing with a word, what I did with a picture.

4. I say "a Karen stopped me in the parking lot, because my car has a loud V8 engine" and most automatically know how the exchange likely went. 

5. My wife has periods, so her moodiness is justified.  Whats your excuse? 

6. I wake up in a good mood every single day. There is literally not a reason for me to be in a bad mood, unless someone affects my good mood. Am incredibly grateful for my blessings. I wake up singing. Would be dancing if not wanting to wake the wife up. 

1. 3.  Is THIS an argument ?  I would say not.
ErcvG-QXEAIAnQT.jpg

2. Because a picture closes the argument.  There's nothing more to be said.  It isn't anything that can help or further any kind of intelligent discussion.

4. And that means nothing either.  You could stop a million Karens or Biden supporters or a million MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters.  What does it mean ?  It means that there are a million people who look like that, act like that.  J

5. I'm a human being ?  You can't expect me to be not-moody all the time any more than I can expect you to be horny.

6. That strikes me as crazy but I'm not saying don't be you.  I'm saying that arguments should be universal if you want them to resonate to someone who lives outside your skull.

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
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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